the world is not what we see

[idunno]

hi

years ago i read about an old research done in Russi i think.
They gave participants twisted glasses which would make them unable to see things as they are. In the first 3 days people saw everything blurred, but then they bagan to see normally again.
The researchers concluded, as a result, that the world is not as we see it:)

[Terry]

That rather depends on what you mean by "see" in this case. I would be inclined to say that what this shows is that the computational part of animal vision can compensate for all sorts of odd aberrations in the purely optical part.

[Hellbound]

Frankly, I'd like to see the experiment in question. My strong suspicion, at this piont, is that this study, as stated, came from a very dark, smelly part of idunno's anatomy.

In other words, can you find the study you calim to be quoting, because I don't believe you're repeating the procedures and results accurately.

[andyandy]

Frankly, I'd like to see the experiment in question. My strong suspicion, at this piont, is that this study, as stated, came from a very dark, smelly part of idunno's anatomy.

In other words, can you find the study you calim to be quoting, because I don't believe you're repeating the procedures and results accurately.

well, I was listening to Dr Karl (truly excellent Australian doctor/radio presenter/author etc) on the radio last night, and he fielded a similar question on perception by referencing studies in which if an individual is given (say) green tinted spectatcles, then after some time, upon looking at something the individual knows is white (like snow), the person perceives it as white - in effect the brain phase shifts to compensate for the green tint.
This seems something similar.

[Terry]

Frankly, I'd like to see the experiment in question. My strong suspicion, at this piont, is that this study, as stated, came from a very dark, smelly part of idunno's anatomy.

In other words, can you find the study you calim to be quoting, because I don't believe you're repeating the procedures and results accurately.

Kohler's work with inverting goggles, maybe?

[Cuddles]

The research you're refering to is probably is probably that done originally by George Stratton in the late 1800s. There doesn't seem to have been much done since then. The glasses weren't "twisted" they simply inverted the image so everything appeared upside-down. The conclusion is exactly as Terry said - it simply shows that the brain can compensate for distortion in the information it recieves.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/858984531.Ns.r.html

[simonmaal]

This effect can be demonstrated thus:

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.php

[Hellbound]

Terry and Cuddles:

Yeah, the inverting goggles were what I was thinking of. And again, the conclusion is quite diffferent from what idunno stated it was.

andyandy:

Yes, I'm familiar with that as well. However, even though it may appear normal to them, there are still certain colors that can't be distinguished (such as a true white and a color that matches the tint). Again, the conclusions would not match those reported by idunno.

[idunno]

The research you're refering to is probably is probably that done originally by George Stratton in the late 1800s. There doesn't seem to have been much done since then. The glasses weren't "twisted" they simply inverted the image so everything appeared upside-down. The conclusion is exactly as Terry said - it simply shows that the brain can compensate for distortion in the information it recieves.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/858984531.Ns.r.html

yeh it seems to be the one.
it was mentioned by an Indian guru to prove the world is an illusion:eye-poppi

[Hellbound]

yeh it seems to be the one.
it was mentioned by an Indian guru to prove the world is an illusion:eye-poppi

Actually, it only proves the guru is, at best, scientifically niave and logically deficient.

[simonmaal]

yeh it seems to be the one.
it was mentioned by an Indian guru to prove the world is an illusion:eye-poppi

It proves no such thing.

[andyandy]

Again, the conclusions would not match those reported by idunno.

but the world isn't how we see it - not in any time specific sense of "now" (beyond a personal concept of time), nor in any reality specific sense - what we see is just an interpretation of stimuli which are then interpreted. As a simple colour related extension, I don't see ultra-violet, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and if i were to see it (like a bee) the world would look very different indeed. We can quite quickly from here retreat into solipsism, an infuriating but impregnable position :)

This doesn't of course prove materialism is false, as stated later by the referenced guru....

[JoeTheJuggler]

This effect can be demonstrated thus:

http://www.johnsadowski.com/big_spanish_castle.php

That's the negative afterimage effect. Different animal altogether. This is not an example of your brain compensating for distortion in the purely optical part of seeing.

[Hellbound]

andyandy,

Well, technically true, yes. I assumed idunno was implying something profound, rather than common knowledge, however :)

ETA: To clarify, I took "see" in his initial post as "percieve". Yes, our vision can be fooled...but we can check that against other senses, and against the sense and perceptions of other people, and against machines and devices we construct to test these ideas. Just because our vision can be fooled, doesn't mean there is no reality ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

To the OP: simply inverted is not the same as twisted.

More importantly, how to you get from the specific findings to the conclusion that "the world is not what we see"? What does that mean anyway? There certainly is a lot more to the world than what we can directly see.

Our visual system is fairly complicated and can be fooled in a number of ways: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

Among others, we're hardwired to look for faces, and that causes all sorts of interesting things--including a number of silly e-bay auctions.

[simonmaal]

That's the negative afterimage effect. Different animal altogether. This is not an example of your brain compensating for distortion in the purely optical part of seeing.

It shows us how our perception can be altered. It might not be exactly the same phenomenon at work, but it nevertheless demonstrates the principle of compensation. We see a certain set of colours, our brain adapts and then takes time to re-adapt back. I see a very strong parallel here even if it is not the exact same thing.

[simonmaal]

Among others, we're hardwired to look for faces, and that causes all sorts of interesting things--including a number of silly e-bay auctions.

Fantz demonstrated this on newly born infants. Very interesting, because it opens up a whole bunch of questions on how we form perceptual hypotheses. It does not, however, provide a licence to regurgitate millennia-old theories from the infancy of our species.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The negative afterimage is the result of "fatigued" cells in the retina. It is not compensation taking place in the brain.

[simonmaal]

The negative afterimage is the result of "fatigued" cells in the retina. It is not compensation taking place in the brain.

OK, you are right - the rods and cones are to blame, not the brain! I'll concede that I should research before I post with unjustified confidence :jaw-dropp I'm allowed one mistake a day :)

However, whether it is the brain or the eye is a moot point in the light of this thread. We are showing there is no need to revert to mystical or solipsistic explanations. We are armed with enough scientific/psychological theories to be able to explain these distortions.

[tsg]

I only have one thing to add...

The researchers concluded, as a result, that the world is not as we see it:)

Yes, and?

[Marcus]

What we percieve as sight is a result of a large amount of processing by the brain, rather than a direct reflection of reality. It is for this reason that our sight can be so easily fooled, a blob becomes Bigfoot, a flashing light a UFO. In many cases ambiguous information has been processed with the persons expectations acting as a filter, so that they may actually "see" the thing they want to see.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'll concede that I should research before I post with unjustified confidence :jaw-dropp I'm allowed one mistake a day :)
I sure hope we're allowed more than one per day. Otherwise I'm waaay over quota myself! :)

However, whether it is the brain or the eye is a moot point in the light of this thread. We are showing there is no need to revert to mystical or solipsistic explanations. We are armed with enough scientific/psychological theories to be able to explain these distortions.

I agree there.

Back to the OP, do you think the brain can compensate for distortions more complicated than a simple inversion?

I think the brain can compensate for very mild astigmatism.

The brain attempts to compensate for information lost in the "blind spot" (caused by the place on the retina where there are no receptors because of the optic nerve).

The brain certainly can't refocus images that are out of focus. (Some refocusing happens by bending the lens in the eye, but again, that's in the eye and not the brain.) Otherwise there would be no need for corrective lenses for myopia and such.

[simonmaal]

Back to the OP, do you think the brain can compensate for distortions more complicated than a simple inversion?

Yes indeed, and I think procedural memory might be involved in this process.

The brain attempts to compensate for information lost in the "blind spot" (caused by the place on the retina where there are no receptors because of the optic nerve).

The phenomenon of blindsight (suspected to be an artefact of evolutionary older neural pathways) suggests this to be the case. Have you ever seen a sports player seem to react to a ball more quickly than would have been possible if relying on conscious awareness of visual information? We do not necessarily need to see something "properly" in order to locate and respond to it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes indeed, and I think procedural memory might be involved in this process.

I was wondering about that. I didn't think the stuff that goes on in the primary visual cortex would be changed. (I mean, that'd require changing a large number of neural connections, something that would take a long time.)

The blindspot phenomenon is a good example that idunno is really wrong in saying the world is an illusion. One way you can detect the blind spot involves tricking the brain into filling in (there's that compensation again) where there is no information coming from the retina.

In this example (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot2.html), if you cover one eye and look at the plus symbol, then move closer and closer to the screen, at some point the dot in the yellow field will disappear and the hole will be filled in with yellow.

So. . .if the world is an illusion, why do we ever see that dot? Since the world is NOT an illusion, we can confidently say that the dot is there even when we've tricked our brain into not seeing it.

If the world is an illusion, how come we all agree on MOST of what we perceive MOST of the time? If I show a card with an image on it to a huge number of people, I'd bet that very nearly 100% of those people will report seeing the same image. Is that just a huge coincidence? We're all imagining the exact same thing?

Obviously, on one level all of our perceptions of the world are nothing more than action potentials being fired in gazillions of neurons.
But that system evolved to give us a pretty good idea of what's happening in the objective world. If there wasn't a very high correspondence, we certainly wouldn't be able to obtain food, avoid predators and reproduce to pass on an perceptual system that only provided us with "an illusion" and not a pretty good picture of the real world.

[baron]

Have you ever seen a sports player seem to react to a ball more quickly than would have been possible if relying on conscious awareness of visual information? We do not necessarily need to see something "properly" in order to locate and respond to it.

As evidenced in this simple demo ~
http://70.84.61.34/~fundotn/Games-D5-140406/reaction.swf

[tsg]

As evidenced in this simple demo ~
http://70.84.61.34/~fundotn/Games-D5-140406/reaction.swf


.255
.246
.225
.207
.216

It evidently didn't work for me. I didn't react to the big dot any faster than the little ones.

[Q-Source]

This doesn't of course prove materialism is false, as stated later by the referenced guru....

But in the quantum physics experiment, if there is an observer the atom behaves as a particle, it does affect reality, so materialism doest not make sense.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But in the quantum physics experiment, if there is an observer the atom behaves as a particle, it does affect reality, so materialism doest not make sense.

The "quantum weirdness" does not apply to structures as big as an atom.

Your leap in applying conclusions pertaining to subatomic things to the world in general is carrying a conclusion FAR beyond the data set.

[Ashles]

But in the quantum physics experiment, if there is an observer the atom behaves as a particle, it does affect reality, so materialism doest not make sense.
That is a completely flawed leap of logic.

I assume you are referring to the double slit experiment and the application of a detector to one of the slits.

This does not negate materialism at all - it is simply a property of subatomic particles as decribed by the field of physics called quantum mechanics.

Can you find a physics website that is arguing that Quantum Mechanics negates materialism?
And it might be best at the same time to define what you mean by 'materialism'.

[andyandy]

But in the quantum physics experiment, if there is an observer the atom behaves as a particle, it does affect reality, so materialism doest not make sense.

woah! We crossed the macroscopic/microscopic divide :D
Looking to refute materialism through QM, rather than personal perception of reality is a whole different kettle of fish....
Wave function collapse (if that is what happens) is not observer dependent, but rather interaction dependent. But certainly on the microscopic, probability density functions do not neatly fit our macroscopic understanding of material existence - but are they what really exists, or simply a description? And before we go any further, what do we mean by "materialism" and on what level should it be evalutated?

[Q-Source]

The "quantum weirdness" does not apply to structures as big as an atom.


You need to read more about QM, it does apply to atoms.

[Q-Source]

Can you find a physics website that is arguing that Quantum Mechanics negates materialism?
And it might be best at the same time to define what you mean by 'materialism'.

I cannot find any QM website that negates materialism, because QM does not make any metaphysical claims. It only makes scientific claims :rolleyes:
I was just giving andyandy an example where materialism can easily be falsified, where it does not make sense anymore.

[Ashles]

You need to read more about QM, it does apply to atoms.
Okay, firstly can you specify what exactly you are referring to by 'it'?

Because 'Quantum Wierdness' isn't really a specific and painstakingly described property of matter.

What QM property are you referring to that applies to atoms and also are you claiming this property applies to complex macro object like, say, a cat or a person?

[Ashles]

I cannot find any QM website that negates materialism, because QM does not make any metaphysical claims. It only makes scientific claims :rolleyes:
I was just giving andyandy an example where materialism can easily be falsified, where it does not make sense anymore.

So your argument against materialism is that QM showes that some things do 'not make sense anymore'?

[Ashles]

From Wiki:
In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.

How does QM negate or falsify that?

[andyandy]

I cannot find any QM website that negates materialism, because QM does not make any metaphysical claims. It only makes scientific claims :rolleyes:
I was just giving andyandy an example where materialism can easily be falsified, where it does not make sense anymore.

The double slit experiment certainly doesn't easily falsify materialism. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by materialism, we might be talking at cross purposes.

[Q-Source]

In materialism, there is an objective reality independently of the observer. You have matter which is perfectly identified either by its position or speed. The experiments in QM show that the observer does make a difference and reality is not that objective and independent after all.

[Ashles]

In materialism, there is an objective reality independently of the observer. You have matter which is perfectly identified either by its position or speed. The experiments in QM show that the observer does make a difference and reality is not that objective and independent after all.
Ah we see the misunderstanding - the old 'conscious observer' issue.

This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Consciousness_ causes_collapse
Note that the 'observer' as you put it is not required, except in one or two theories that are criticised for introducing unecessary elements.

[andyandy]

In materialism, there is an objective reality independently of the observer. You have matter which is perfectly identified either by its position or speed. The experiments in QM show that the observer does make a difference and reality is not that objective and independent after all.

no it does not show this. It doesn't prove that there is not an objective reality - just because human (or any other) interaction can alter a quantum state it does not mean that there was no state existence independent of that interaction.

[Q-Source]

Andyandy,
Going back to the initial post, are you saying that you and I observe an objective reality? I mean, that we observe the world as it is? I think you live in the illusion that there is an objective reality.

[Ashles]

Andyandy,
Going back to the initial post, are you saying that you and I observe an objective reality? I mean, that we observe the world as it is? I think you live in the illusion that there is an objective reality.
And why do you think this is an illusion?
It may well be, but you appear absolutely certain for some reason, and as we have just demonstrated, it isn't because of your knowledge of QM.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You need to read more about QM, it does apply to atoms.

Once you're dealing with whole atoms, you're talking about chemistry.

Edit: there is no wave/particle issue when you're dealing with whole atoms.

[Terry]

Edit: there is no wave/particle issue when you're dealing with whole atoms.

Umm.... http://www.rle.mit.edu/ifm/pubs/AAMOP/AAMOP-B-2.html

[baron]

Umm.... http://www.rle.mit.edu/ifm/pubs/AAMOP/AAMOP-B-2.html

Or even

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/626-1.html

[JoeTheJuggler]

I stand corrected. :blush:

It's still a grand leap (or perhaps contradiction) to use the physical descriptions of things to argue against materialism.

[andyandy]

Andyandy,
Going back to the initial post, are you saying that you and I observe an objective reality? I mean, that we observe the world as it is? I think you live in the illusion that there is an objective reality.

of course i'm not saying that. I have already said the opposite - that what one observes is a subjective interpretation of stimuli. It is not an objective description of reality. Nevertheless this does not prove that materialism is false nor does it prove that there is not an objective reality that does in fact exist. Is your position that of solipsism? Certainly that is non-falsifiable, but the extension is not that materialism has been falsified.

[Dogdoctor]

I remember hearing about a study where they gave several people glasses that inverted light so that everything seemed upside down. As time went on they were able to function better and if I recall correctly one of them was Terry Bradshaw and he learned to pass the football with the glasses on. I think that just demonstrates the plasticity of the brain.

[Normal Dude]

I remember a fascinating study I read about in a psychology class that involved kittens who were raised in an area with only vertical or horizontal shapes being visible; after a while, they had an impaired ability to "see" or navigate the other shapes, IIRC.

I'll look that up and find a link to confirm.

ETA: I think it was Colin Blakemore and G.F. Cooper in 1964.

[Dr Adequate]

Frankly, I'd like to see the experiment in question. My strong suspicion, at this piont, is that this study, as stated, came from a very dark, smelly part of idunno's anatomy.

In other words, can you find the study you calim to be quoting, because I don't believe you're repeating the procedures and results accurately. Don't you wish that you hadn't said that?

[Dr Adequate]

I cannot find any QM website that negates materialism, because QM does not make any metaphysical claims. It only makes scientific claims :rolleyes:
I was just giving andyandy an example where materialism can easily be falsified, where it does not make sense anymore. Well, you don't need me here to contradict you when you can just sit there and contradict yourself. Good luck with that.

[Ashles]

Well, you don't need me here to contradict you when you can just sit there and contradict yourself. Good luck with that.
Dr A, I was just wondering which of Q-Source's posts in this thread you found most entertaining and why.

I am also hoping that your response to my question will mark your 10,000th post.

And then I will feel cool and manly in ways that are psychologically and sexually complex and not worth me describing in detail here.

[Hellbound]

Don't you wish that you hadn't said that?
No, actually, because I still stand by that statement.

I knew about the inverted goggle experiments, and soe with color filters. The experiment (and conclusions) from the OP were not what was in the research :D

[Modified]

It evidently didn't work for me. I didn't react to the big dot any faster than the little ones.

You can't just try it once and call it a day. After ten tries, I'm averaging about 15% faster for the big dot than the little ones. A short wait time between dots costs me as much as 20%. It seems to take some time to settle down and prepare for the next one.

[tsg]

You can't just try it once and call it a day. After ten tries, I'm averaging about 15% faster for the big dot than the little ones. A short wait time between dots costs me as much as 20%. It seems to take some time to settle down and prepare for the next one.

I didn't bother doing it again because I thought the point was you didn't know the last dot was going to be much bigger. Maybe I'm misunderstanding "startle reflex", but I thought the effect would be less if you knew it was coming.

[Q-Source]

Well, you don't need me here to contradict you when you can just sit there and contradict yourself. Good luck with that.

Arrogant fool. You have nothing to contribute with, go away troll.

[robinson]

well, I was listening to Dr Karl (truly excellent Australian doctor/radio presenter/author etc) on the radio last night, and he fielded a similar question on perception by referencing studies in which if an individual is given (say) green tinted spectacles, then after some time, upon looking at something the individual knows is white (like snow), the person perceives it as white - in effect the brain phase shifts to compensate for the green tint.

You don't even need tinted glasses. The brain compensates for the color temperature of light to make white look white. All the time. Sunlight, tungsten light, fluorescent light, candlelight, gaslight, overcast light, they all are different, but your brain changes how you perceive color to make white look white. Moonlight is especially troublesome.


Anyone who uses video technology knows about this, because you have to change the white balance of the electronics in the camera or white doesn't look white. And other colors are skewed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_balance for the doubters.
Not only color, but contrast will change with lighting, as will black, but our perception of what the world looks like changes, so that things look pretty much the same, to us. It is an inherent quality of brain/cognition process, it goes on quite without any effort.

Depending on how you parse the words and the meaning of words, the world does not look like we think it does. This can be shown with a very simple experiment that anyone can do, at any time, which will show even the most closed minded skeptic, that we do not see the world as it is.







OK maybe not a close minded skeptic, they can't learn anything new, but everybody else might enjoy it.

[robinson]

We can quite quickly from here retreat into solipsism, an infuriating but impregnable position :)

No doubt.

This doesn't of course prove materialism is false, as stated later by the referenced guru....

In the sense of this, what do you mean by "Materialism"?

[robinson]

What we perceive as sight is a result of a large amount of processing by the brain, rather than a direct reflection of reality.

Scientific studies lead to it being both the eye and the brain involved in sight, and constancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_constancy

Have you ever seen a sports player seem to react to a ball more quickly than would have been possible if relying on conscious awareness of visual information? We do not necessarily need to see something "properly" in order to locate and respond to it.

There was a scientific test on reaction time done on the show "Fight Science". It seems that nerves and reaction time can be increased through training, to levels that seem almost paranormal. The body can react even before the brain has perceived information.

But in the quantum physics experiment, if there is an observer the atom behaves as a particle, it does affect reality, so materialism doest not make sense.

What is meant by "Materialism" in this conversation?

[Modified]

I didn't bother doing it again because I thought the point was you didn't know the last dot was going to be much bigger. Maybe I'm misunderstanding "startle reflex", but I thought the effect would be less if you knew it was coming.

In that case you are correct. Neither your times nor mine had anything to do with the startle reflex. A change in size and color will be recognized more quickly on average than a change in color alone, but with a true startle reflex you would get a much faster time and the feeling that you hadn't consciously pushed the button. If the big dot were accompanied by a loud and unexpected "bang" noise, it might work.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You don't even need tinted glasses. The brain compensates for the color temperature of light to make white look white. All the time. Sunlight, tungsten light, fluorescent light, candlelight, gaslight, overcast light, they all are different, but your brain changes how you perceive color to make white look white. Moonlight is especially troublesome.


Anyone who uses video technology knows about this, because you have to change the white balance of the electronics in the camera or white doesn't look white. And other colors are skewed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_balance for the doubters.
Not only color, but contrast will change with lighting, as will black, but our perception of what the world looks like changes, so that things look pretty much the same, to us. It is an inherent quality of brain/cognition process, it goes on quite without any effort.

Depending on how you parse the words and the meaning of words, the world does not look like we think it does. This can be shown with a very simple experiment that anyone can do, at any time, which will show even the most closed minded skeptic, that we do not see the world as it is.


I agree with what you say about the brain having mechanism to compensate for color levels (and different light levels etc.). I disagree with your conclusion that "the world does not look like we think it does". I'm not even sure what it means.

We evolved the compensation mechanisms because they usually give us a pretty accurate mental map of reality. The fact that we can trick these mechanisms with optical illusions doesn't say that our mental map of reality is an illusion or that it's not based on reality. If it were purely illusory, these compensation mechanisms would have no survival value and offer no selective advantage. (We'd also walk into walls a lot more often.)

[robinson]

I agree with what you say about the brain having mechanism to compensate for color levels (and different light levels etc.). I disagree with your conclusion that "the world does not look like we think it does". I'm not even sure what it means.

I'm not sure what people mean either. What I am sure of, is that the eye/brain/cognition system we call "mind" or "perception", changes the information coming through the sensory pathway, which may or may not make things clearer. In the sense of this conversation. I do know, based on extensive research, that what we see is very much a function of our vast ability to process information. And that different people see different things when they "look" at the same sensory input.

Does this mean the world is an illusion? Or does it mean out perception of what is there can change, meaning we change what is there, based on our perception. As was noted, we quickly run into the extreme problem of communication. This ancient problem has been solved to a great extent, by cameras, which don't blink, alter, or otherwise change the photons being captured by the sensor and storage medium.

So that what actually is, or has been, can be recorded, from several points of view, leading to the ability to view the same event multiple times, so that the very real problem of seeing can be both examined, as well as improved.

We evolved the compensation mechanisms because they usually give us a pretty accurate mental map of reality.

Actually, that isn't the case at all. What we consider reality, (as many magicians, including the esteemed Randi have shown), is quite easy to manipulate. If you understand how the human eye and perception works, it is easy to deceive somebody. One of the things I have learned from Randi and others, is that visual perception, seeing, is one of the easiest of the sense to fool. It takes training and skill to actually see what is, rather than be fooled by the illusion.

Our great tendency to change perception to keep the world making sense, works against us when what is being viewed is designed to take advantage of this fact. Yes, in the jungle or on the savannas, our instinct works quite well, but in a world where visual cues can be altered, they work the other way around.

In fact, attention is required to see, and attention can be manipulated, or changed, making it possible to actually alter reality, so that what we see is an illusion. Again, the illusion is inside our selves, rather than out there.

The fact that we can trick these mechanisms with optical illusions doesn't say that our mental map of reality is an illusion or that it's not based on reality.

It might seem we are approaching a shared opinion about this. :D

If it were purely illusory, these compensation mechanisms would have no survival value and offer no selective advantage. (We'd also walk into walls a lot more often.)

It's funny, your comment about walking into walls is quite relevant, if you consider sliding glass doors, or other clear glass barriers. Because we tend to trust our eyes, it is possible to smash right into a wall of glass, because we think if we can't see something, it doesn't exist.

Same goes for mirrors, which fool the eye. With smoke and mirrors, all kinds of illusions can be produced, which are impossible to tell with the eye alone, yet when the mind is aware of the trick, we can see reality, even when it doesn't match what we see.

Getting back to the topic premise, the best explanation I heard, was simply this.

Yes, there is a Universe of vibrating energy, matter and form, that exist even if we don't. Our perception of this Universe, is very limited, and doesn't always match what is there. If our perception, our understanding of what is there, matches what is really there, we are seeing reality, or at least the limited bit of it our sense can grasp.

[Taffer]

Isn't the brain a wonderful thing?

[SomeGuy]

Arrogant fool. You have nothing to contribute with, go away troll.

Hey, be nice to him, let him troll eventhough he has nothing to contribute.

You have no clue about QM, yet we keep letting you post.

SomeGuy M.Sc.

[Dancing David]

The brain attempts to compensate for information lost in the "blind spot" (caused by the place on the retina where there are no receptors because of the optic nerve).



The brain manufactures perceptions wholesale from the sensation. It manufactures the images in the blind spot and most of the colors that we see.

[simonmaal]

So. . .if the world is an illusion, why do we ever see that dot? Since the world is NOT an illusion, we can confidently say that the dot is there even when we've tricked our brain into not seeing it.

If the world is an illusion, how come we all agree on MOST of what we perceive MOST of the time? If I show a card with an image on it to a huge number of people, I'd bet that very nearly 100% of those people will report seeing the same image. Is that just a huge coincidence? We're all imagining the exact same thing?

A very clear and concise conclusion that hits the nail right on the head! I only wish I had written it ;)

[robinson]

Research into perception and cognitive dissonance has shown that perception changes with little effort, and can not be trusted. Eye witness accounts, and experiments with perception has shown, repeatably, that we can't trust our perception of events.

Isn't that weird?

[simonmaal]

Research into perception and cognitive dissonance has shown that perception changes with little effort, and can not be trusted.

Eye witness accounts, and experiments with perception has shown, repeatably, that we can't trust our perception of events.

Isn't that weird?

I have instantly refuted that argument by banging my fist hard against my desk.

[robinson]

There is a very simple experiment, that anyone can do, to discover just how different we see the world, than what is actually looks like, say, to a camera. The cognitive dissonance this may produce, ensures most people will forget they did the experiment, so there is little mileage in it.

[simonmaal]

There is a very simple experiment, that anyone can do, to discover just how different we see the world, than what is actually looks like, say, to a camera. The cognitive dissonance this may produce, ensures most people will forget they did the experiment, so there is little mileage in it.

Can you elaborate please because you are confusing me completely. I think the problem may be your misapplication of the term "cognitive dissonance", which actually refers to a conflict between emotion and behaviour (think of the story of the fox and the grapes).

[robinson]

Forget cognitive dissonance for the moment. Look at this data.

http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm

Dr. Asch was astonished at what happened next. After thinking hard, three out of four subjects agreed with the incorrect answers given by the confederates at least once. And one in four conformed 50 percent of the time.

Dr. Asch, who died in 1996, always wondered about the findings. Did the people who gave in to group do so knowing that their answers was wrong? Or did the social pressure actually change their perceptions?

The new study tried to find an answer by using functional M.R.I. scanners that can peer into the working brain, a technology not available to Dr. Asch.

The researchers found that social conformity showed up in the brain as activity in regions that are entirely devoted to perception. But independence of judgment - standing up for one's beliefs - showed up as activity in brain areas involved in emotion, the study found, suggesting that there is a cost for going against the group.

"We like to think that seeing is believing," said Dr. Gregory Berns, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at Emory University in Atlanta who led the study.

But the study's findings, he said, show that seeing is believing what the group tells you to believe.

Or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

It is a known human condition, that perception can change, based on external or internal factors.

[robinson]

I was using Cognitive dissonance in the sense of experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena. You can do a simple experiment that will demonstrate this. Pretty much anybody can. But it may induce Cognitive dissonance, in the sense I noted above.

Even when you know in advance it is going to cause tension, it still does. Most people won't even do the experiment, or of they do, immediately dismiss it, because of the mental stress it produces.

I just remembered another experiment as well. The amount of effort people put into trying to avoid the information that a simple experiment produces, is indicative of the amount of inner turmoil it can produce.

[Dancing David]

I have instantly refuted that argument by banging my fist hard against my desk.

That is a cute refutation of Berkley.

How big is the area of your eye that senses color. The colors are there to be sensed but our brain paints most of them in.

We have the following (assuming we are not BIV)

a. observable reality
b. the interactions of sense organs and the observable reality
c. the perceptions

Here is the rub, the sensations are often very limited in thier scope (IE the fovea , where we actually sense color is very very small) and our brain manufactures the perceptions from the sensations, often filling in materialw here there is no direct sensation to be had.

When you look at a sunset it is often striking in color, your brain often manufactures those colors without direct sensation. It gets a bit of data here and there and fills in the rest.

So observabloe reality sure seems to exist, the sensations sure seem to exist, but often perceptions are created without a direct referent of sensation.

So while the + in the blind spot is there in a., it is not there in b. and it is manufactured without sensation in c. . In fact a checkerboard is a better example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea

is a discussion of the fovea, there are cones outside the fovea but it is crucial to the images we percieve, a little data goes long way.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html#c2

shows a distribution plot of the cones in the eye, and it shows that the vast majority of cones are in a very limited area of the retina. yet if you look at the sunset with just one eye you will still see all those colors where they are not being sensed directly, why?

Because our brains manufactures perception, sometimes without the benefit of sensation.

[simonmaal]

Forget cognitive dissonance for the moment. Look at this data.

http://www.zainea.com/socialconformity.htm

Or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

It is a known human condition, that perception can change, based on external or internal factors.

The studies you cited are very interesting but let's take Asch. After the experiment, they interviewed some of the participants and some "knew" the lines were different from how they called it, but they felt a social pressure to conform (hence the title "conformity experiments"). It is interesting (and very telling in the light of our current discussion) that this effect increases as the task becomes more ambiguous. Furthermore, recent attempts to replicate this study have found a less strong effect, presumably because people are less likely to conform now than they were in the 1950s. Finally, maths and engineering students were less likely to be influenced by the confederates. Presumably they were complying with a referent (non present) group of which they were members (ie maths/scientists) rather than the group that was present in the study.

So maybe we are seeing cognitive dissonance at work here, but not in the way you seemed to be asserting: CD does not seem to affect perception, it affects behaviour. We also have to consider the effects of memory and its pliability in the recall context.

You do have the beginnings of a point, although I think you could have better demonstrated it by using the autokinetic effect as an example (Sherif).

[simonmaal]

I was using Cognitive dissonance in the sense of experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena. You can do a simple experiment that will demonstrate this. Pretty much anybody can. But it may induce Cognitive dissonance, in the sense I noted above.

Even when you know in advance it is going to cause tension, it still does. Most people won't even do the experiment, or of they do, immediately dismiss it, because of the mental stress it produces.

I just remembered another experiment as well. The amount of effort people put into trying to avoid the information that a simple experiment produces, is indicative of the amount of inner turmoil it can produce.

OK, thank you for the clarification. I was originally concerned that you were trying to pass solipsism off as science by using a psychological term. You have since cleared this up so I think we are now reaching some common ground.

[simonmaal]

When you look at a sunset it is often striking in color, your brain often manufactures those colors without direct sensation. It gets a bit of data here and there and fills in the rest.

OK, I have to admit to being a bit naughty there with that overstatement! Check out my earlier posts (in this thread) on perceptual hypotheses for more details. We are into the Gregory-Gibson debate on direct or constructive perception.

It would seem that the 2 processes (direct or constructive) are relevant to different situations; for example, if I were a driver of a car and saw a large lump in the road, I would be concerned over where it was so that I could take evasive action. In contrast, as a passenger in the same situation, I would be more concerned over what it was so I could assess the risk of injury should the driver fail to steer around it.

ETA: Here is a copy and paste from a psychology essay I wrote last year, which outlines my stance on the relativism-reality dialectic (references removed for readibility but I can include them if you like, and the rest of the 2000 word essay):



In support of realism, it could be argued that stubbing a toe against a rock produces a painful response that needs no interpretation. However, the placebo effect draws this assumption into question: pain can be reduced or alleviated simply by the belief that some substance or activity will do so. Equally, conditions such as fibro-myalgia can cause pain despite the absence of any obvious physical cause, and conditions such as tension headaches are aggravated by emotional distress. In other words, the conscious experience of pain seems not to be objective; instead, it is part of a reciprocal relationship with emotion and context that is open to interpretation.

[MRC_Hans]

Just jumping in replying to the OP, without reading the thread, so this may already be said.

hi

years ago i read about an old research done in Russi i think.
They gave participants twisted glasses which would make them unable to see things as they are. In the first 3 days people saw everything blurred, but then they bagan to see normally again.
The researchers concluded, as a result, that the world is not as we see it:)The conclusion is wrong. In fact the proper conclusion is exactly the opposite:

Since the brain compensates for the abbaration (and yes it was making the image upside down) and reverts to the oroginal perception, it means that the correlation between our inputs end up showing the same world even if we modify one input. Thus, we can conclude that the worls is actually as we perceive it.

If our perception of the world was only the uncompensated input from our senses (the eyes, in this case), then that would be it, and it would change as we changed the input. Instead, our brain corrolates all the inputs and end up with a good approximation of the actual world.

Hans

[robinson]

Can you elaborate please because you are confusing me completely. I think the problem may be your misapplication of the term "cognitive dissonance", which actually refers to a conflict between emotion and behaviour[sic] (think of the story of the fox and the grapes).

This topic is a pretty good example of how people don't perceive what is right in front of them, or even better, how they either don't see something, or dismiss it because it doesn't fit with their preconception of what is there. This process is transparent, unconscious, we are not aware of it occurring.

I think self proclaimed skeptics are the worst at this, because they want so very much to think they see what is, rather than what they believe is there, or not there. The deluded, the woo, the religious, it is obvious when they do it, because the gulf is so wide, but skeptics, or at least pretend skeptics, can't see that they are missing what is, or worse, ignoring what is there.

This is illustrated in the language itself. We hear, "I see no evidence", or "I've seen nothing to convince me", even in the face of obvious evidence. This occurs when the conclusion is already decided upon, the antithesis of scientific thought. Experiments have confirmed that bias, preconceptions, actually change how the brain interprets input.

Note, if you are still able to, the ignoring of input in this very topic. Those that have already decided they see the world as it is, can't even look at anything that might upset that belief system. It isn't like it is a choice either, it occurs quite without effort. No doubt I may suffer from this same problem, even knowing it can happen.

In the sense of this, what do you mean by "Materialism"?

What is meant by "Materialism" in this conversation?

The brain manufactures perceptions wholesale from the sensation. It manufactures the images in the blind spot and most of the colors that we see.

MRI research has shown many an amazing new facts about these matters. Researchers have found, watching the actual brain working, that it isn't that the subject is making stuff up, or faking it, the perception is actually different, or absent, based on the neural activity. How we create the illusion inside our brain is fascinating stuff.

Well, unless you are a woo, in which case this science stuff isn't interesting at all. Because woos already know everything. :D

Thus, we can conclude that the worls[sic] is actually as we perceive it.

If our perception of the world was only the uncompensated input from our senses (the eyes, in this case), then that would be it, and it would change as we changed the input. Instead, our brain corrolates[sic] all the inputs and end up with a good approximation of the actual world.

I don't know what a "worls" is. Did you know you just typed that? Did you even see what you wrote?

[robinson]

Typos, and words, are a great example of how the brain creates meaning, rather than looking at what is really there. We can raed even teh wrost typnig as long as the frist and last lettres are there.[sic]

But that other thing, where we think we actually see what is ther, that is another matter.

[simonmaal]

behaviour[sic]

Why this sic? I am English and that's how we spell it over here so get off your petty high horse please.

This topic is a pretty good example of how people don't perceive what is right in front of them,

Yes, seeing how you missed both my interpretation of the results and the title of the article you quoted on Asch (conformity), which tends to be in line with the most common interpretation of the results. Conformity is a social phenomenon (I have neither the inclination nor time to repeat myself so go back and read what I wrote to see how I illustrated this point). Conformity is nothing to do with the kind of perceptual distortions the OP was talking about and does not even begin to address the compensations made by the brain in the face of "non-standard" perceptual input (I'm thinking the Horus face illusion here as a good example).

The rest of your post seems to be a bit of an off-topic rant against both sceptics and woos, so I will not address it in this thread.

[Mashuna]

Typos, and words, are a great example of how the brain creates meaning, rather than looking at what is really there. We can raed even teh wrost typnig as long as the frist and last lettres are there.[sic]

But that other thing, where we think we actually see what is ther, that is another matter.

I'm not elrniety ccvioend by the fuaactl aaurcccy of **** :p



eta: apparantly if you transpose the middle two letters of 'this', it falls foul of the autocensor, which can spot if you try to swear backwards!