The Objectivist Theory of Perception vs. Optical Illusions

[sjw]

So, that is why I premised my question so you would not perceive it as an attack. Unfortunately, you chose to disregard that approach.

Adam

Regardless of whatever qualifications you put on your posts, I am not going to forget that you said "Be safe, Shayne" at the conclusion of a contentious argument and then refused to explain what you meant by the statement. And there was another instance of something similar that I'd have to go dig up.

So, if you want to ask me weird questions and not have my responses "biased" according to your previous behavior, post under a pseudonym, and then hope I don't figure out who you really are.

Shayne

[Selene]

So, that is why I premised my question so you would not perceive it as an attack. Unfortunately, you chose to disregard that approach.

Adam

Regardless of whatever qualifications you put on your posts, I am not going to forget that you said "Be safe, Shayne" at the conclusion of a contentious argument and then refused to explain what you meant by the statement. And there was another instance of something similar that I'd have to go dig up.

So, if you want to ask me weird questions and not have my responses "biased" according to your previous behavior, post under a pseudonym, and then hope I don't figure out who you really are.

Shayne

Fascinating.

[BaalChatzaf]

Something in the brain. There are optical illusions that won't go away even when they are understood. Some optical illusions are the result of neurologically wired in effects and cannot be thought away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wonder how you would measure that. Perhaps some illusions can only be "thought away" (i.e., perceived correctly) by a small minority.

Shayne

No one can get away from the Ames Room illusion. The effects of that illusion are hardwired into human brains.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if both is equivalent to neither?

Shayne,

If you collapse existence down to an instant where time does not exist, I suppose so.

But time does exist and we exist in waves, not in a frozen state.

Ditto for volition and hard-wired stuff. They flow in waves through time--one instant volition prevails and another hard-wiring prevails. And on and on. That's how they coexist within us.

Time is usually eliminated from Objectivist discussions concerning the nature of something, just like memory is eliminated when discussing epistemology.

I find that to be a primary error of identification.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I wonder if both is equivalent to neither?

Shayne,

If you collapse existence down to an instant where time does not exist, I suppose so.

But time does exist and we exist in waves, not in a frozen state.

Ditto for volition and hard-wired stuff. They flow in waves through time--one instant volition prevails and another hard-wiring prevails. And on and on. That's how they coexist within us.

Time is usually eliminated from Objectivist discussions concerning the nature of something, just like memory is eliminated when discussing epistemology.

I find that to be a primary error of identification.

Michael

Have a care. Wave and Particles are mathematical abstractions. Neither exists in nature. We just use the terms metaphorically. Beware of reifying abstractions. Doing so causes advanced brain (or is it mind) rot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Thanks for your concern, but I seem to be doing OK.

Nothing has rotted so far.

And I still hold to my wave idea. Double-speak will not make me give it up.

You know why?

Because I observe the pattern!

I observe reality, then conclude, instead of preaching a principle, handing down highfalutin sounding bloviated decrees, and eliminating from consideration the parts of reality that don't fit.

Try it. You might like it.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Because I observe the pattern!

I observe reality, then conclude, instead of preaching a principle, handing down highfalutin sounding bloviated decrees, and eliminating from consideration the parts of reality that don't fit.

Try it. You might like it.

Michael

A lot of people observe patterns. For example mirages in a desert. Or drinking gourds in the the Sky. Much of what we observe is the connecting of the dots which we are doing, not reality. Nature provides the dots (sometimes) and we draw the dashed lines between them (almost always). Every constellation in the heavens is man made. It is not Star Stuff (as Carl Sagan, might say).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Not really, but time is limited, and if insisting so makes you happy,

The difference between you and I Ted, is that I am capable of backing up my propositions, whereas you run and hide behind be hide pathetic "my time is limited". Thanks for the book recommendation, but I have no interest in your unjustified assertions and arrogant posturing.

that is more important than technical philosophy.

On the contrary, what is important to you is to prance about pretending you know something. You pop in in order to prance, and then pop back out. Prancing is more important than providing coherent arguments. And then when I point out the fact that you are prancing and not reasoning you get offended.

Shayne

No, what I meant is that you are old and have limited time and need to focus on things that make you happy, like accusing me of prancing. I am not going to try to explain technical philosophy when you are so wrapped up in being right. Enjoy it. Don't waste your time reading Kelley either.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Ted Keer

[sjw]

No, what I meant is that you are old and have limited and need to focus on things that make you happy, like accusing me of prancing. I am not going to try to explain technical philosophy when you are so wrapped up in being right. Enjoy it. Don't waste your time reading Kelley either.

Unlike you Ted I don't have to guess at your motives (or your age, or your ability to construct grammatically-correct sentences), I can simply observe the fact that you are indeed prancing about, that you are indeed spewing unjustified propositions, that you indeed seem to have a need to insult and pretend to be talking down to somebody who is really just a better thinker than you. I get it, you're jealous. I'd feel sorry for you, but you're just such an ass it makes it a hard thing to do.

Shayne

[Selene]

No, what I meant is that you are old and have limited and need to focus on things that make you happy, like accusing me of prancing. I am not going to try to explain technical philosophy when you are so wrapped up in being right. Enjoy it. Don't waste your time reading Kelley either.

Unlike you Ted I don't have to guess at your motives (or your age, or your ability to construct grammatically-correct sentences), I can simply observe the fact that you are indeed prancing about, that you are indeed spewing unjustified propositions, that you indeed seem to have a need to insult and pretend to be talking down to somebody who is really just a better thinker than you. I get it, you're jealous. I'd feel sorry for you, but you're just such an ass it makes it a hard thing to do.

Shayne

Truly fascinating.

[sjw]

Truly fascinating.

What's fascinating is that you seem to have a habit of thinking that you are surrounded by weak-minded idiots who will blindly take to your suggestions. I wonder where you learned this habit.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A lot of people observe patterns. For example mirages in a desert. Or drinking gourds in the the Sky.

Bob,

Here's a wave pattern of consciousness for you, albeit not at the micro level.

And it involves both hard-wiring and volition.

Our awareness alternates between sleep and awake--our entire lives.

I observe this and others observe it, also.

But, for you, that's only a mirage in a desert or a drinking gourd in the sky, I guess.

Whatever...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

This question is just wrong, wrong and wrong.

--Brant

[Selene]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

This question is just wrong, wrong and wrong.

--Brant

I actually should have worded it, do you think that a persons ability to change the rotation of the dancer at will, would be enhanced, or not enhanced, by having ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances?

Edited November 23, 2010 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

This question is just wrong, wrong and wrong.

--Brant

I actually should have worded it, do you think that a persons ability to change the rotation of the dancer at will, would be enhanced, or not enhanced, by having ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances?

Yeah, but you didn't. You ran a red light and T-boned the other guy. I almost did that once years ago in Phoenix driving a grossed-out 18-wheeler. I overheated my brakes and couldn't stop in time for a red light and plowed halfway through an intersection. Because of a high wall on my left, I had no idea if I was going to kill anyone or not until I came, finally, to a stop. No one was there, including a cop. (The gal driving that mini-van full of kids wasn't feeling well so she stayed home.)

While I was innocent and you are suspect, if I had killed anyone the rest of my life would have been garbage. All you need do is apologize, but you don't seem to know why, and if you don't you really can't. Hint: it's not an unfortunate mis-wording. Partially, it's exactly what you said it wasn't. Partially, it's presumptuous condescension. Partially, it's a question. The question is in the middle, like mystery meat in a bun.

--Brant.

[Kimmler]

Do questions cause offence? I thought it was only statements like "you have taken them...that is why you think like that" that would cause offence here. Surely not asking if he has, as that is just Adam's shtick, his humour. Be wise to it, laugh at it or just ignore it but never ever take jokes seriously.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Kimmler

[Selene]

Shayne:

For things like this all we can do is comment on how we as individuals experience things. I can tell you that I am able to choose the direction it spins, it can randomly change if I don't focus, but if I do then I can reliably select the direction. So, none of your remarks apply to me, but I can't speak for you or anyone else.

Again, this is not meant as an attack, or any attempt to demean you, but have you in the past ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances, either by choice or by medical treatment?

Adam

This question is just wrong, wrong and wrong.

--Brant

I actually should have worded it, do you think that a persons ability to change the rotation of the dancer at will, would be enhanced, or not enhanced, by having ingested any hallucinogenic medications, or mushrooms, or LSD type substances?

Yeah, but you didn't. You ran a red light and T-boned the other guy. I almost did that once years ago in Phoenix driving a grossed-out 18-wheeler. I overheated my brakes and couldn't stop in time for a red light and plowed halfway through an intersection. Because of a high wall on my left, I had no idea if I was going to kill anyone or not until I came, finally, to a stop. No one was there, including a cop. (The gal driving that mini-van full of kids wasn't feeling well so she stayed home.)

While I was innocent and you are suspect, if I had killed anyone the rest of my life would have been garbage. All you need do is apologize, but you don't seem to know why, and if you don't you really can't. Hint: it's not an unfortunate mis-wording. Partially, it's exactly what you said it wasn't. Partially, it's presumptuous condescension. Partially, it's a question. The question is in the middle, like mystery meat in a bun.

--Brant.

Fair statement.

I apologize Shayne and I take full responsibility for any pain I may have caused you by my inept and unfeeling question.

Adam

Edited November 23, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I get the damnedest thing going with that spinning lady.

I can get the bouncing foot and its shadow going in the other direction and get her other leg to follow at times, but I can't get the shadow of the raised foot that runs from left to right at the bottom of the screen out of my view.

So I'm able to perceive a silhouette of a bouncing lady (a hottie at that) with half of her body spinning in one direction and the other half spinning in the other direction at the same time.

I think I need a nap...

Michael

[merjet]

I get the damnedest thing going with that spinning lady.

I can get the bouncing foot and its shadow going in the other direction and get her other leg to follow at times, but I can't get the shadow of the raised foot that runs from left to right at the bottom of the screen out of my view.

That's not a shadow. It's a goose spinning in the same direction.

So I'm able to perceive a silhouette of a bouncing lady (a hottie at that) with half of her body spinning in one direction and the other half spinning in the other direction at the same time.

I think I need a nap...

Michael

Yes, a long nap. Or are you using a mirror to see two images of her simultaneously?

[sjw]

I get the damnedest thing going with that spinning lady.

I can get the bouncing foot and its shadow going in the other direction and get her other leg to follow at times, but I can't get the shadow of the raised foot that runs from left to right at the bottom of the screen out of my view.

So I'm able to perceive a silhouette of a bouncing lady (a hottie at that) with half of her body spinning in one direction and the other half spinning in the other direction at the same time.

I think I need a nap...

Michael

Interesting. I wonder what the humanly possible range of perceptual modes actually is. Are you any good at looking at stereograms?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I would say I am average to slightly below average at detecting stereograms. My interest lies in persuasion with these things, though, not entertainment.

I am currently plowing through this book: The Age of Manipulation: The Con in Confidence, The Sin in Sincere by William Bryan Key.

He's one of the dudes who found hidden images of genetilia and other stuff in modern advertising.

It's an entertaining book because of the aura of naughty that he promotes (while pretending otherwise), but it's a bit hard to stomach for 3 reasons:

1. He's really convinced that he's one of the greatest human beings to ever live (intellect-wise) and he makes sure you understand that,

2. His conclusions about the real effects of subliminal advertising are overly-speculated--he should have left it at simple attraction, which is pretty easy to corroborate, or other simple observable affects, and

3. He's anti-big business to a fault.

At least so far.

However, he was a university professor and his work is widely studied as a how-to manual in the advertising field (although nobody admits it openly and that was not his intent).

The part I find fascinating so far is his grasp of epistemology on the perceptual level. This is the real value for me, not the dirty pictures or conspiracy theories.

Key not only describes how our brains automatically focus on a subject and background, he goes deeply into examples so you can see for yourself. I am starting to entertain the thought that "subject and background" is the basis of concept formation (and this includes perception for all senses), not Rand's differentiation and integration--or at least a "subject and background" identification precedes her conditions.

Incidentally, this would allow for a concept of one unit, but I believe it is more accurate as to what goes on in the mind than trying to run math through abstractions where it doesn't fit. Once again, it's not that I believe Rand was wrong, but that her scope was off. There actually are concepts based on measurement-omission. I just don't think this condition applies to all concepts (and I am developing some preliminary work on this idea).

Jeez...

Look at how I meandered all over the place because of a simple question...

Michael

[sjw]

This is a fascinating effect:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/schizoillusion

Evidently, only those who are somehow mentally deranged can "beat" this illusion and see the actual reality.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

This is a fascinating effect:

http://www.wired.com.../schizoillusion

Evidently, only those who are somehow mentally deranged can "beat" this illusion and see the actual reality.

You don't see "the actual reality" but a three-dimensional representation by two-dimensions. The reality is just what you see. One sees it one way and another another and both are "actual." Now, in one of Nathaniel Branden's BP of Objectivism lectures he remarks about how a skeptic might claim that what we see is an illusion by referencing two railroad tracks going off in the distance seemingly becoming one track and How Do We Know It Isn't One Track?! The skeptic: "Go up there and take a look!"

--Brant

Edited November 27, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

This is a fascinating effect:

http://www.wired.com.../schizoillusion

Evidently, only those who are somehow mentally deranged can "beat" this illusion and see the actual reality.

You don't see "the actual reality" but a three-dimensional representation by two-dimensions. The reality is just what you see. One sees it one way and another another and both are "actual." Now, in one of Nathaniel Branden's BP of Objectivism lectures he remarks about how a skeptic might claim that what we see is an illusion by referencing two railroad tracks going off in the distance seemingly becoming one track and How Do We Know It Isn't One Track?! The skeptic: "Go up there and take a look!"

--Brant

You're confused. This is not an argument for skepticism, it is an argument for a sane view of perception (as opposed to the Objectivist insanity that we can just go ahead and take our perceptions as the given). The actual reality is that the face points in not out. But normal people will perceive it pointing out, the reverse of the truth.

Comparing with railroad tracks is silliness. No one thinks that when you are a hundred feet away you are only 2 inches tall. But someone might see this mask illusion and not be able to tell that it's poking in until they inspect it. The fact that mental derangement undoes this "seeing what you expect" proves that normal perception is sometimes wrong. It can fail to integrate relevant sensory information into the correct perception (and probably fails for a good evolutionary reason). This is not an argument for skepticism, it is an argument to apply reason instead of just taking perceptions for granted.

Shayne

Edited November 27, 2010 by sjw

[sjw]

Yet more evidence against Rand's theory of perception: Children have to learn in order to perceive like adults do: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827844.700-children-really-do-see-things-differently.html

Shayne