 |
 |
TRADUZIR |  |
 |
No exaggeration - we humans really have to imagine all the things we `see'.
For the brain can't access optical views of the outside world.
[the photons we think we see are actually stopped by back of eye - any external photons getting into the brain are just passing through, like hard radiation, cosmic rays etc.]
What does arrive at the brain - is a picture suggested or imagined by the `old' or `lizard' ref-01 brain, then re-assembled by the brain's own neurons for our `conscious' brain to view.
It's all due to the way we - and all advanced mammals - have to wire-up our brains following birth. ref-02 & ref 03
Our ancestral need - to pre-emptively spot forest dangers - ensures that the brain `makes up' much of what we think is `real'. ref-04
"An examination of most of the data of vision would reveal no examples of what could be accurately called `correct' perception"
"Light and Vision"
This has been proven by repeated cruel experiments on intelligent higher animals and their babies.
Those experiments were mostly unnecessary, for when humans born blind accidentally gain the gift very late in life they describe the horrific and monstrous things they can 'see' - which are actually everyday objects. Even familiar but previously unseen friends and relatives are `seen' as grotesque and threatening.
Many of these unfortunate folk turn to darkened rooms, or even suicide.
See Science News article.
`Perceptions' conclusion: that the unused templates are taken over by internal creations of the 'old brain' (lizard brain), which generates only FEAR / GREED / LUST / ANGER signals & stimuli. ref-01
Reference - "Perceptual learning and adaptation" Penguin Modern Psychology Readings 1970 - Penguin Books, for actual details - which are NOT for the sensitive, or maybe see "Going Inside" by John McCrone - 1999 Faber and Faber Limited, for a more discursive treatment and update.
A new-born human or dog or cat quickly has to confirm - by the use of its senses of touch, taste etc, along with vision - the widest possible range of shapes and textures and shades and colors.
If this isn't done during that vital early period the human or animal will never see "normally" - whatever that might mean.
Because all those angles, surfaces, textures, shapes and shadows are stored away for future association and use.
So, when `seeing' something really weird the observer can be very confused: not knowing what really ref-04 happened.
Because there was no "template" for the brain to model.
Multiple witnesses should always give multiple descriptions.
`Quantum' twists
Basic optical signals - from eyes - stimulate `old brain' to interpret, and only then project onto consciousness's viewing screen- at back of brian.
All this at neuron level - and perhaps subject to `quantum' uncertainty and `observer' choice'. Maybe as a result, `time-splitting' and `time-reversal' often occur inside our brains:-
Simultaneous events can be `seen' as happening one after the other.
Worse, consecutive events: A » B, can be reversed:
seen by the brain as B » A.
EXAMPLE
UPDATE - Duggins et al
"We will review a standard derivation of the Inequality, and explain how it can be applied to the Moutoussis/Zeki paradigm. Surprisingly, the results of the original experiment suggest that the Inequality is violated, and thereby cast doubt on the 'microconsciousness' theory. ... Visual consciousness must then be considered non-local and inseparable: the microconsciousness does not exist."
- "Is the Bell Inequality Violated in Visual Perception?"
Brain's `choice' of `sequence & time'
Our primary perceptions (and reactions) are primitive - controlled by the `lizard brain' - fear / hatred or greed / lust.
I.e. a non-thinker, a racist, or bigot or bully or coward, always agrees with the `lizard brain'!
However, thinkers - using the `new brain' - can see through those illusions (with some effort). Even so, that `lizard brain' also lies to us about basic physical facts!
Because the cerebellum (lizard brain) is in charge during routine action - walking / running / driving, while the `new brain' evaluates cognitive input - reading, conversation, calculation, there can be a clash of `timings' or `sequence' of physical events.
[Don't forget - we don't get a true, optical view of the outside world, just a consensus of the lizard brain's view perhaps amended by the new brain].
In crises, this can lead to a confusion of timings, or even reversals of sequence!
BRAIN BIOLOGY DETAILS
| if you're feeling confident the stranger is "seen" as shorter and smaller than in reality hair/complexion is "seen" as thinner/paler attitude is "seen" as more helpless hands are "seen" to be empty, harmless |
if you're feeling threatened the stranger is "seen" as taller and heavier than in reality hair/complexion is "seen" as thicker/darker attitude is "seen" as more aggressive rolled newspaper is "seen" as a club/weapon |
The Problem of Epistemology and Cosmic Models
"Here is the dilemma: If a mind grasps its world by means of mental categories that have evolved solely to ensure the survival of that mind, there is no reason to assume that the world the mind grasps is the world as it is. Many minds survive in this world, yet see the world in fundamentally different ways. There is robin-world, bullfrog-world, wood-chuck-world, and housefly-world. And there is human-world. The world of each of these creatures is validated insofar as it ensures the survival of the creature, but no further. The positivist assumes that a human mind grasps the world as it is, but from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason to make such an assumption. Instead there are many reasons to assume an observed world differs from the world as it is.
The observer is neither neutral nor passive. Rather, the observer, by the very act of observing, participates in and structures the world. For the positivist, this dilemma is fatal. Yet from a Darwinian perspective there is no reason to assume it is not true. Ironically Darwinism leads to a logical cul-de-sac. If the Darwinist is right, there is no reason to assume that the Darwinist can accurately model the world. If the Darwinist is wrong, there is no reason to assume that the Darwinist can accurately model the world."
Ben M. Carter
Are there some simple rules?
Yes! - But they don't seem all that sensible -
1 - No-one can see a true - accurate - image of reality.
2 - No two people see same image of reality, not even from different angles, not even if both view at same time.
3 - Brain may `choose' realities unconsciously or even consciously.
4 - Each`memory' is seen as `true' - although maybe altered, or even reversed, more than once
"Light and Vision" - joint editors C.P. Snow (British Ministry of Technology), Prof. Henry Margenau (Yale University), Prof. René Dubois (The Rockefeller University)
Are these "real"?  
|
white-topped blocks stepping down to right OR white-bottomed blocks over-lapping up to left |
EITHER or NEITHER |
small young woman looks to her right OR large old dame looks to your left |
These known `truths' are still being denied by some scientists, police ID paraders, "beauty" experts, and politicians,
and folk who argue in bars
|
