3 ms·

I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. Second, the exercises purpose is to demonstrate that missing i

by cortic 6y ago

I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. Second, the exercises purpose is to demonstrate that missing information in an image is obvious whereas missing information in a mental image is not. And the point is that picturing something to many feels the same as looking at a picture, but in actual fact that feeling is an illusion. >my perception of my visual thoughts is the same as my perception of the visible world. If this were true, you would not know when the picture of the pirate was partially off the screen. Or conversely you would know that the mental image of the pirate had no trousers before being asked.

jjk166 6y ago
Okay, here's an experiment less subject to philosophical interpretation: Picture Jack Sparrow (assuming you feel like you have a good memory of pirates of the carribean). In particular, picture his sparrow tatoo. Write down what color it is. Then look online at an image of it [0]. Is the color the one you wrote down that you pictured? Repeat this again for any image you feel like you remember. If your mind were simply making you think that you were picturing things correctly, what you write down should rarely match reality. On the other hand, if you are actually storing visual information, your memory should pretty regularly be correct. Not everyone actually does store data visually, it really could go either way. With regards to your comment, the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a pirate's shirt. If you look at a photograph of someone, do you become instantly aware of all information contained within it with perfect detail? If so you must be great at where's waldo. For the rest of us, we perceive a gross overview at first and to identify any details we must focus in. But the fact that we don't know where waldo is before we look for him does not mean our brains are retroactively placing him into the picture. [0] http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm
Tor3 6y ago
> I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. But the idea that when you see a (real) picture, or scene in the real world, you actually see it all - thats an illusion. The mind doesn't work that way. You only see the little bit you're focusing on, but the brain tries to trick you into believing that you see it all. What really happens is that when you want to know about the trousers you focus on the trousers. Until you do that you don't actually know. If someone asks you to describe details about the pirate's clothes you'll first scan every part sequentially, add what you see to a list of answers, and then answer. Things work the same when you imagine a picture (for those who can do that) - you'll know the details only when you focus on each detail, and, as the image wasn't a physical one on the table top the mind fills in as and when it's needed. Just as when you process a physical picture.
- cortic 6y ago
  Are you really saying that if i gave you a picture of a pirate with no pants on, you wouldn't notice unless i asked you what color his pants were? A glance at the image would tell you those kinds of things, a 'glance' at a mental image should tell you the same, but it doesn't. I agree that our experience of sight is an illusion as well, but its demonstrably different to the illusion of our experience of imagined imagery.
  - Tor3 6y ago
    If there's something in a scene or picture that sticks out, like a green vest or a red spot in an otherwise gray image then your consciousness is made aware of this by whatever processing elements the visual system does for you. So your focus gets drawn to the missing pants (unless something else gets a higher priority - ref. the gorilla suit experiment). But that's beside the point. For me or you to have a mental image of a pirate with no pants on we'll have to create that image in our minds first, with missing pants and all, so how can you compare that with being presented with a picture on a table?

by cortic 6y ago

jjk166 6y ago

Okay, here's an experiment less subject to philosophical interpretation: Picture Jack Sparrow (assuming you feel like you have a good memory of pirates of the carribean). In particular, picture his sparrow tatoo. Write down what color it is. Then look online at an image of it [0]. Is the color the one you wrote down that you pictured? Repeat this again for any image you feel like you remember. If your mind were simply making you think that you were picturing things correctly, what you write down should rarely match reality. On the other hand, if you are actually storing visual information, your memory should pretty regularly be correct. Not everyone actually does store data visually, it really could go either way. With regards to your comment, the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a pirate's shirt. If you look at a photograph of someone, do you become instantly aware of all information contained within it with perfect detail? If so you must be great at where's waldo. For the rest of us, we perceive a gross overview at first and to identify any details we must focus in. But the fact that we don't know where waldo is before we look for him does not mean our brains are retroactively placing him into the picture. [0] http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm http://www.jacksparrowcostuming.com/tatoo.htm

Tor3 6y ago

> I think you are cheating a bit, first the instruction was to picture a pirate, not a bit of one. But the idea that when you see a (real) picture, or scene in the real world, you actually see it all - thats an illusion. The mind doesn't work that way. You only see the little bit you're focusing on, but the brain tries to trick you into believing that you see it all. What really happens is that when you want to know about the trousers you focus on the trousers. Until you do that you don't actually know. If someone asks you to describe details about the pirate's clothes you'll first scan every part sequentially, add what you see to a list of answers, and then answer. Things work the same when you imagine a picture (for those who can do that) - you'll know the details only when you focus on each detail, and, as the image wasn't a physical one on the table top the mind fills in as and when it's needed. Just as when you process a physical picture.

cortic 6y ago
Are you really saying that if i gave you a picture of a pirate with no pants on, you wouldn't notice unless i asked you what color his pants were? A glance at the image would tell you those kinds of things, a 'glance' at a mental image should tell you the same, but it doesn't. I agree that our experience of sight is an illusion as well, but its demonstrably different to the illusion of our experience of imagined imagery.
- Tor3 6y ago
  If there's something in a scene or picture that sticks out, like a green vest or a red spot in an otherwise gray image then your consciousness is made aware of this by whatever processing elements the visual system does for you. So your focus gets drawn to the missing pants (unless something else gets a higher priority - ref. the gorilla suit experiment). But that's beside the point. For me or you to have a mental image of a pirate with no pants on we'll have to create that image in our minds first, with missing pants and all, so how can you compare that with being presented with a picture on a table?