4 ms·

Luckily this only applies to vision and not at all to more abstract processes like world views and belief systems...

by TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
This will pass the average sarcasm detector I’m sure of it.
- lebuffon 4y ago
  :-))))
- OscarCunningham 4y ago
  But after they read your comment people will have always known it was sarcasm.
  - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
    If it passes the average sarcasm detector then is the average observer any less or more certain sarcasm’s afoot?
prometheus76 4y ago
Don't worry, it only applies to everyone else's world views and belief systems. Yours are accurate and reliable.
- jrh206 4y ago
  Mine too. In fact, seven years ago I decided to stop moving my eyes. Since then, both my world views AND my vision have been completely reliable.
  - exikyut 4y ago
    It doesn't quite land the same way to have to explain it long-form, but... I remember learning years ago about an experiment some researchers did where they anesthetized some test subjects' eye muscles (don't remember how), bolted them into a frame so their heads couldn't move, and positioned mirrors above that could be moved with a handle. What this test setup found was that as long as the mirrors were constantly moving (even just a tiny bit), the participants could generally speaking see completely normally. But as soon as the mirrors stopped moving, the participants reported that their vision fairly rapidly went completely grey. (The ba-dum-tss here is the "completely reliable" in your comment... :D) I don't think the optic system in the brain is the only aspect that is "change-stimulated". A bit of a pet theory is that a lot of thought processes are quite similar at the low (and not so low) level. I'm hoping to come across that study at some point, just not sure what to Google.
    - mym1990 4y ago
      That sounds like a terrifying experiment!
    - mgdlbp 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading But my favourite one of these when your vision of something doesn't go away--viewing these test images for a few minutes can alter your visual perception involuntarily for months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollough_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollough_effect Edit: this might be your study, https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(76)90082-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(76)90082-1 Edit: wtf, I didn't know that waking total paralysis was something that's experimented on in humans. It's impossible to search for too, being camouflaged completely by sleep paralysis. > Before the succinylcholine was administered an arterial tourniquet was placed on the right arm, thus preventing local blood flow and paralysis. This procedure made it possible for JKS to communicate by flexing his hand even during total paralysis. They found lots of other weird effects when trying to move one's eyes that are partially or fully paralysed, like feeling that the entire world is moving in the wrong direction, being able to see during saccades, and afterwards consciously perceiving an object as being in one direction but reaching somewhere entirely different when trying to touch it.
- wussboy 4y ago
  I know you’re joking, but this effect you described actually is just another trick our brains play to help us survive in the world. We believe that only we are free from this illusion.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I think it is not just plausible but likely that some world views are more accurate than others, and that various techniques/frameworks can provide not overly difficult means to improve one's approach....but, it is also very easy to wind up with a misleading one, often due to unrealized/unrealizable axioms.
namero999 4y ago
Sounds like a false equivalence. The contradiction here is between our physical rendition of a phenomenon (like the image being rendered upside-down on the retina due to optics) and experience. We don't have a physical description of belief systems or philosophical views (nor we can), so I don't see how the sarcastic remark applies to those contexts.
- jrh206 4y ago
  Cognitive biases exist in a variety of contexts. The phenomenon of saccadic masking doesn't imply the existence of those other biases logically, but TheOtherHobbes makes a pertinent generalisation, imo.
  - namero999 4y ago
    Like I briefly mention in another comment, there is a point in claiming that what mind does is precisely to constantly deceive itself, yes. But the original comment sounds like hooking up to some factoids to bulk dismiss religious beliefs and meaning as illusions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  > upside-down on the retina due to optics This is completely arbitrary when you think about it. Why would the physical orientation of the brain and its inputs necessarily have to have any correlation with anything? You don't expect it to have any meaning whether you plug in an HDMI cable vertically or horizontally, or what direction your RAM chips face. If someone turned your brain sideways or upside down while keeping the "cables" in tact you wouldn't even know it.
  - namero999 4y ago
    Well, there's nothing I disagree with in your statement, but am also not sure how to fit it within the previous exchange. OP was implying that, because there could be cases where the description of a phenomenon contrasts with the direct experience of it (such as the image being "flipped" due to the law of optics), then we are always deceived. I disagree with that characterization because either we say that mind always deceives itself (I can work with that statement) or you can't exclusively point out world views and beliefs, because in those cases we don't have a physical representation to contrast them with, therefore it's a non-sequitur.

Luckily this only applies to vision and not at all to more abstract processes like world views and belief systems...

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

This will pass the average sarcasm detector I’m sure of it.

lebuffon 4y ago
:-))))
OscarCunningham 4y ago
But after they read your comment people will have always known it was sarcasm.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  If it passes the average sarcasm detector then is the average observer any less or more certain sarcasm’s afoot?

prometheus76 4y ago

Don't worry, it only applies to everyone else's world views and belief systems. Yours are accurate and reliable.

jrh206 4y ago
Mine too. In fact, seven years ago I decided to stop moving my eyes. Since then, both my world views AND my vision have been completely reliable.
- exikyut 4y ago
  It doesn't quite land the same way to have to explain it long-form, but... I remember learning years ago about an experiment some researchers did where they anesthetized some test subjects' eye muscles (don't remember how), bolted them into a frame so their heads couldn't move, and positioned mirrors above that could be moved with a handle. What this test setup found was that as long as the mirrors were constantly moving (even just a tiny bit), the participants could generally speaking see completely normally. But as soon as the mirrors stopped moving, the participants reported that their vision fairly rapidly went completely grey. (The ba-dum-tss here is the "completely reliable" in your comment... :D) I don't think the optic system in the brain is the only aspect that is "change-stimulated". A bit of a pet theory is that a lot of thought processes are quite similar at the low (and not so low) level. I'm hoping to come across that study at some point, just not sure what to Google.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    That sounds like a terrifying experiment!
  - mgdlbp 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxler%27s_fading But my favourite one of these when your vision of something doesn't go away--viewing these test images for a few minutes can alter your visual perception involuntarily for months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollough_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollough_effect Edit: this might be your study, https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(76)90082-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(76)90082-1 Edit: wtf, I didn't know that waking total paralysis was something that's experimented on in humans. It's impossible to search for too, being camouflaged completely by sleep paralysis. > Before the succinylcholine was administered an arterial tourniquet was placed on the right arm, thus preventing local blood flow and paralysis. This procedure made it possible for JKS to communicate by flexing his hand even during total paralysis. They found lots of other weird effects when trying to move one's eyes that are partially or fully paralysed, like feeling that the entire world is moving in the wrong direction, being able to see during saccades, and afterwards consciously perceiving an object as being in one direction but reaching somewhere entirely different when trying to touch it.
wussboy 4y ago
I know you’re joking, but this effect you described actually is just another trick our brains play to help us survive in the world. We believe that only we are free from this illusion.
mistermann 4y ago
I think it is not just plausible but likely that some world views are more accurate than others, and that various techniques/frameworks can provide not overly difficult means to improve one's approach....but, it is also very easy to wind up with a misleading one, often due to unrealized/unrealizable axioms.

namero999 4y ago

Sounds like a false equivalence. The contradiction here is between our physical rendition of a phenomenon (like the image being rendered upside-down on the retina due to optics) and experience. We don't have a physical description of belief systems or philosophical views (nor we can), so I don't see how the sarcastic remark applies to those contexts.

jrh206 4y ago
Cognitive biases exist in a variety of contexts. The phenomenon of saccadic masking doesn't imply the existence of those other biases logically, but TheOtherHobbes makes a pertinent generalisation, imo.
- namero999 4y ago
  Like I briefly mention in another comment, there is a point in claiming that what mind does is precisely to constantly deceive itself, yes. But the original comment sounds like hooking up to some factoids to bulk dismiss religious beliefs and meaning as illusions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jimmaswell 4y ago
> upside-down on the retina due to optics This is completely arbitrary when you think about it. Why would the physical orientation of the brain and its inputs necessarily have to have any correlation with anything? You don't expect it to have any meaning whether you plug in an HDMI cable vertically or horizontally, or what direction your RAM chips face. If someone turned your brain sideways or upside down while keeping the "cables" in tact you wouldn't even know it.
- namero999 4y ago
  Well, there's nothing I disagree with in your statement, but am also not sure how to fit it within the previous exchange. OP was implying that, because there could be cases where the description of a phenomenon contrasts with the direct experience of it (such as the image being "flipped" due to the law of optics), then we are always deceived. I disagree with that characterization because either we say that mind always deceives itself (I can work with that statement) or you can't exclusively point out world views and beliefs, because in those cases we don't have a physical representation to contrast them with, therefore it's a non-sequitur.