New theories are trash ?????

[Strange]

Perhaps you should consider asking questions about specific sentences if you don't understand.

 

There are too many.

 

But I have asked you several times to explain specific words and phrases. You always refuse. So what is the point of asking you about another hundred?

 

Again: what is a "scalar question"?

 

Is it really so hard to explain. (preferably in less than 1,000 words)

 

 

People can't see what they don't expect

 

Still repeating that lie after it has been proven wrong repeatedly? Pathetic.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

"People can't see what they don't expect"

 

This proposition from Cladking has been experimented by psychologists or neurologist, but I don't remember what it was. Anybody does?

Edited September 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

"People can't see what they don't expect"

 

This proposition from Cladking has been experimented by psychologists or neurologist, but I don't remember what it was. Anybody does?

 

I've seen experiments that conclude that people often don't see what they don't expect, but not that they can't. The latter is a much stronger statement and has already been shown to be false.

[Strange]

The classic example is this:

 

Note that studies show that approximately 50% of people fail to see something unexpected. Of course, second time round approximately 100% people do see.

 

So this disproves both "people" and "can't".

[Carrock]

Note that studies show that approximately 50% of people fail to see something unexpected. Of course, second time round approximately 100% people do see.

 

So this disproves both "people" and "can't".

So failing to see something unexpected once somehow virtually guarantees that person will in future see any repetition?

[Strange]

So failing to see something unexpected once somehow virtually guarantees that person will in future see any repetition?

 

I don't think so. But I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

[Le Repteux]

The classic example is this:

 

Note that studies show that approximately 50% of people fail to see something unexpected. Of course, second time round approximately 100% people do see.

 

So this disproves both "people" and "can't".

This is the experiment that I was talking about, tank's strange. So, its not true that everybody do not see what they don't expect when they are already concentrated on something else, but it is true that it takes an important change in our sensations for us to get out of concentration. For instance, if the intruder had yelled or bumped onto people, everybody would have noticed him.

 

Now, when we discuss, we are also concentrated on what we think, and it takes time before we notice a small change in our opponent's opinion. But this is not what Cladking means: he means that it would be impossible for us to even understand what is going on if we did not know it was an experiment. If you are convinced that what you see is usual, and that in fact, it is not, you cannot detect what's wrong with it. Inversely, if you are convinced it is wrong, as for and idea, you cannot detect what's normal in it.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

but it is true that it takes an important change in our sensations for us to get out of concentration.

 

Any evidence to support that? Or just yet another unsubstantiated claim?

 

For instance, if the intruder had yelled or bumped onto people, everybody would have noticed him.

 

How do you know that? I haven't watched this particular video again, but there is a version where the intruder takes the ball and bounces it.

 

But this is not what Cladking means: he means that it would be impossible for us to even understand what is going on if we did not know it was an experiment.

 

Evidence required.

 

If you are convinced that what you see is usual, and that in reality it is not, you cannot detect what's wrong with it.

 

Evidence required.

[cladking]

 

 

Now, when we discuss, we are also concentrated on what we think, and it takes time before we notice a small change in our opponent's opinion. But this is not what Cladking means: he means that it would be impossible for us to even understand what is going on if we did not know it was an experiment. If you are convinced that what you see is usual, and that in fact, it is not, you cannot detect what's wrong with it. Inversely, if you are convinced it is wrong, you cannot detect what's usual.

 

 

I watched the video and didn't know what to expect to see since they didn't state the rules (two teams, two balls, no mixing). While still trying to determine the pattern (rules) I lost count and saw the gorilla immediately mistaking it as the distraction. I thought the gorilla was a distraction to hide something more fundamental. I then had to watch it twice to see him stop and gorilla it up in mid movie. We each see our own movie but reality is far harder to apprehend than what we see or think we see. We not only see what we expect but we see what we attend to and it must be within our experience, knowledge, and expectations. "Optical illusions" are simply things outside our expectations. With enough experience most can be overcome in most observations.

 

As a rule I believe animals are not so prone to such things because many of them arise from knowledge and language. Animals are more dependent on all of their senses rather than vision alone. Animals attend to things that are important to them just as we do and getting them to count ball passes would prove difficult. We look at the world and see our experience and knowledge and much of this is an artefact of language and is the perspective of language. Perhaps you could say that "animal instinct" is action predicted by the lack of this knowledge and perspective but I prefer not to think of it in these terms because it will complicate other knowledge.

 

 

 

Evidence required.

 

 

Evidence is always required but people need to remember that "evidence" is very much a product of experience and, in the hard sciences, experiment. Without understanding the reality there can be wide interpretations of "evidence". The soft sciences have made strides in modern times to explain human behavior and observations but the fact is most of the terms aren't even well defined yet. There are no experiments per se and terms are poorly defined. What evidence can exist at all that points to only a single conclusion is this enviroment?

[Strange]

"Optical illusions" are simply things outside our expectations. With enough experience most can be overcome in most observations.

 

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

 

As a rule I believe animals are not so prone to such things because many of them arise from knowledge and language.

 

How can an optical illusion be caused by language? Please provide a reference to support this claim.

[Le Repteux]

Optical illusions come from real objects, it is the interpretation that our brain makes which is false. The brain expects what it is used to, and changes the facts to fit what it expects. It always tries to figure out in advance what is going to happen, and since most of the time things don't change, it expects no change. For the brain, evidence is thus no change. Want some evidence of that Strange?

Edited September 27, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Optical illusions come from real objects, it is the interpretation that our brain makes which is false. The brain expects what it is used to, and changes the facts to fit what it expects. It always tries to figure out in advance what is going to happen, and since most of the time things don't change, it expects no change. For the brain, evidence is thus no change. Want some evidence of that Strange?

 

I don't understand all of that but, basically, yes. Optical illusions are caused by the visual systems of the brain misinterpreting information from the eyes. That is supported by a lot of experimental evidence.

 

What is not so well supported is that:

 

a) Optical illusions are caused by language; and

 

b) They can be overcome with experience.

 

I am not convinced that either of these are true. Hence the request for supporting references.

[Le Repteux]

I remember an experiment with lenses that could inverse the left /right vision. At first, the experimenter could not even grasp a glass directly, he had to see his hand move and bring it inch by inch on the other side until he hits the glass, but after having worn them all day long for two weeks, he could drive his bike without falling. He sort of gotten used to an illusion there, no?

[StringJunky]

Strange, on 27 Sept 2014 - 8:33 PM, said:

 

I don't understand all of that but, basically, yes. Optical illusions are caused by the visual systems of the brain misinterpreting information from the eyes. That is supported by a lot of experimental evidence.

 

What is not so well supported is that:

 

a) Optical illusions are caused by language; and

 

b) They can be overcome with experience.

 

I am not convinced that either of these are true. Hence the request for supporting references.

I wouldn't say caused but one can be directed verbally what to 'see' in a scene where there is a multiplicity of possible images in it.

[Strange]

I wouldn't say caused but one can be directed verbally what to 'see' in a scene where there is a multiplicity of possible images in it.

 

I'm sure that's true in some cases.

I remember an experiment with lenses that could inverse the left /right vision. At first, the experimenter could not even grasp a glass directly, he had to see his hand move and bring it inch by inch on the other side until he hits the glass, but after having worn them all day long for two weeks, he could drive his bike without falling. He sort of gotten used to an illusion there, no?

 

Not really; that isn't an illusion. Swapping left and right means that left and right are swapped. An illusion is where you see something that is not what is presented to the eyes.

 

It is also another thing that contradicts the "no one can see anything new" argument.

[Le Repteux]

What I meant is, for a given illusion, one could possibly stop the illusion if he would look at it long enough. It took two weeks for the experiment I was talking about, thats the time it takes for the mind to change its idea of what to expect from reality.

[Strange]

What I meant is, for a given illusion, one could possibly stop the illusion if he would look at it long enough.

 

As far as I know, that is not so.

 

 

It took two weeks for the experiment I was talking about, thats the time it takes for the mind to change its idea of what to expect from reality.

 

That was not an optical illusion.

[cladking]

There are many types of optical illusions dependent on how you define the term. The only thing that applies to all of them is they fool the eye of at least some observers some of the time.

[Strange]

There are many types of optical illusions dependent on how you define the term. The only thing that applies to all of them is they fool the eye of at least some observers some of the time.

 

So you refuse to answer the question? AGAIN. Pathetic.

[swansont]

What I meant is, for a given illusion, one could possibly stop the illusion if he would look at it long enough. It took two weeks for the experiment I was talking about, thats the time it takes for the mind to change its idea of what to expect from reality.

 

Such extrapolation is invalid. Being able to train one to adapt to one sort of illusion does not mean all could be addressed this way.

[Le Repteux]

You are probably right, but I find it amazing that our mind can absorb such a change in its sensations in only two weeks. To me, it means that it takes us at least two weeks to develop an automatism, and that once it is developed, it takes us again at least two weeks to change it. Now, executing an automatism means that we do not have to think about what we do during this time, so that we can learn to execute another automatism in the same time. During such an execution, our mind expects no change, but it still has to be aware of a new sensation if ever something unknown happens, a sensation different from the one that was present when its automatism was learned. In the same time, our mind thus expects no change, but if some happen, it is ready to stop executing the automatism as it was and begin the process of changing it. In our discussions here, what tells a scientific that one of the sensations he actually gets from one of its automatism does not have the same meaning than the one he had when he leaned it? What sensation tells him that one of its automatism would have to be changed if he wants to understand what is presented to him?

Edited September 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

You are probably right, but I find it amazing that our mind can absorb such a change in its sensations in only two weeks.

 

The brain is very adaptable. Contrary to your repeated claim that it is impossible to see anything new.

 

But this has little or nothing to do with science, which relies on objective evidence.

[Le Repteux]

As the left/right experiment shows, it is not impossible to see something new, it only takes time, but what if the experimentors would have refuse the change, what if they would have preferred to keep their eyes shut instead of trying to adapt to the new sensation? Isn't it what we do sometimes in our discussions instead of trying to change our mind, thus instead of changing our automatisms?

[Bignose]

As the left/right experiment shows, it is not impossible to see something new, it only takes time, but what if the experimentors would have refuse the change, what if they would have preferred to keep their eyes shut instead of trying to adapt to the new sensation? Isn't it what we do sometimes in our discussions instead of trying to change our mind, thus instead of changing our automatisms?

And what if an alien invasion fleet had attacked in the 5th hour of the experiment? What is all the investigators in the research project has suffered simultaneous heart attacks? What if the King of Siam has gone around punching all the test subjects in the nose when wearing the inverting glasses? There are countless what if's that could be brought up here...

 

Sure, LR, anything could have happened. And there are stubborn people in all walks of life, even a few scientists. The point of bringing this up is that the flat generalizations made earlier were debunked. The people can indeed see changes even under unusual circumstances.

[Le Repteux]

Sure we can change our automatisms, but it takes time, and what I wanted to pinpoint, it's that an individual can artificially add to the time it naturally takes. A kid can easily add to the time it takes to learn something: all he has to do is refuse to do so. There can be different reasons for a kid to refuse a learning, and different ways too. When I was twelve, I was good at school, but I was also beginning to refuse religion, and when came the time to learn Latin, even if I tried to, I could not. I almost flunked my school-year because of that. I simply did not like the idea, and it was impossible for me to overcome my feeling.