5 ms·

Angels, ghosts, UFOs, miracles all have the same characteristics. A person who seems very reasonable says they are sure that saw the thing, and they provide SOM

Angels, ghosts, UFOs, miracles all have the same characteristics. A person who seems very reasonable says they are sure that saw the thing, and they provide SOME circumstantial or grainy photographic evidence, but no one actually got a full resolution picture of the angel or ghost or UFO. I doubt these people are lying. They actually saw something. Miracles are the easiest example to explain. Someone couldn't walk and then a saint said a prayer for them and they could walk again. It is pretty easy guess that it was a placebo effect or coincidence that the medical issue got better at the same time. We have never seen someone with a X-Ray of a severed spine regain full walking ability after a prayer from a saint. UFO's may exist, but it seems more likely that a combination of reflections, radar issues, tiredness/stress, "wanting to believe" caused them to see "something"

xpe 3y ago
It seems likely to me that “seeing things” is consistent with the predictive processing model from cognitive neuroscience. To summarize: the retina error-corrects a simulation provided from the cortex. Let’s say some visual details are fuzzy. With a strong enough Bayesian prior (e.g. belief in UFOs), the human perceptual apparatus could subjectively see things that look like UFOs. Mind bending, but this seems to me a credible and popular theory of brain functioning. I’m no expert and new to the theory. Please correct me if I’m butchering it. P.S. Like anyone, I often detect motion in my peripheral vision without much detail. Maybe once a year (or less), I see weird things that seem implausible, but only for brief instant. When I look, there is nothing unusual. Yes, bring on the “what are you smoking?” comments… but I assure you the answer is “nothing”.
- gitfan86 3y ago
  Yes, that seems right. Humans fill in the gaps. AI is similar, where it "hallucinates", but are humans that much different?
- friendzis 3y ago
  While this is not a well studied phenomenon, as in to the extent of having well formed theory, we do know that eyes constantly perform micromovements. One of the prevailing hypotheses states that due to low inherent resolution of the retina these micromovements are used to create sort of sub-pixel resolution. Hence, visual cortex inherently works in predictive/generative mode with constant feedback correction. This hypothesis is sometimes used to explain phenomena like pareidolia and might as well be used to explain perception of UFOs.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  You are hallucinating complete nonsense here. Just think for a second, if such a thing was possible, why would it be restricted to "UFOs"? Obviously, such an illness would be well known.
  - George83728 3y ago
    > if such a thing was possible, why would it be restricted to "UFOs"? Who said it is? Tons of people report seeing all manner of nonsense.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      The prevalence of mental illnesses leading to visual hallucination is very low actually. The idea of whole departments in the US government being staffed with them is absurdist nonsense.
      - gitfan86 3y ago
        "normally functioning" brains see things that are not actually there ALL the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion Most UFO reports fall into the Optical Illusion category rather than extreme schizophrenia.
        Loquebantur 3y ago
        Optical illusions are not at all the same thing as visual hallucinations. Your allegation about UFO reports is accordingly simply incorrect.
        gitfan86 3y ago
        Right, so your point about people not having hallucinations frequently is valid. But most people do see optical illusions. So it seems strange that you have jumped to the conclusion that these must be real UFOs since most people do not hallucinate.
- xpe 3y ago
  > Recent empirical work from independent laboratories shows strong, overly precise priors can engender hallucinations in healthy subjects and that individuals who hallucinate in the real world are more susceptible to these laboratory phenomena. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(18)30282-1 https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S136... Trends in Cognitive Science OPINION | VOLUME 23, ISSUE 2, P114-127, FEBRUARY 2019 Hallucinations and Strong Priors Philip R. Corlett, Guillermo Horga, Paul C. Fletcher, Ben Alderson-Day, Katharina Schmack, Albert R. Powers III Open Access Published: December 21, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    First of, this is completely off-topic, since the whistleblower reports being briefed on non-human technology in possession of the US, which is being intensively studied. Further, their related "sightings" are corroborated by multiple sensor systems simultaneously. And multiple pilots as well. Now, your idea of hallucinations being an explanation for such sightings, obviously impossible due to said sensors systems in the first place, is utter bogus since not only do you not have "strong priors" in such a situation, you also do not employ people suffering from hallucinations as pilots for mulit-million dollar fighter jets to begin with. Your article finally describes an entirely different phenomenon than "seeing an object consistently for an extended period of time". Which is what is relevant here.
    - xpe 3y ago
      You are not the final arbiter of what is on topic. Topics are subjective and connected cognitively differently by different people. Also, in my view, my comment is directly on topic to the message it replies to. [1] I’m curious about your user experience with Hacker News. Do you use the normal web interface or some other UI? I’m sorry to ask the obvious question, but I do want to rule it out: do you realize that comments are situated relative to the parent comment, right? Now, after factoring this in, do you see how my comment is a response to its parent? If you’d like to think about it mathematically, try this. The original post could be characterized as having a topic vector in a many dimensional space. Each subsequent reply can be characterized similarly. As you get deeper in the conversation tree, the topic vectors diverge significantly. This does not mean a somewhat distant (in topic vector space) comment is “off-topic”. Quite to the contrary, it means the original post has generated a rich variety of discussion. This said, I take your point that transitory perceptual errors do not explain all UFO sightings, nor do they directly bear on the whistleblower’s main claims. One can make such a point without being prickly about it. I’m sorry that you seem upset here and in your comments generally across the threads here. I can relate to some degree; there is is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to the topics of evidence and people’s ability to evaluate truth claims. I can also relate to prioritizing factual assessments at the expense of tact and empathy towards others. For many years of my life I did this, and it did not serve me well. It is your responsibility to not take out on your frustrations on me or anyone else. Treat us with respect or your reputation may suffer. If you manage a civil tone, I will engage with you further. Otherwise, I don’t see it being productive enough to warrant the effort. To be specific, I suggest reviewing the HN Guideliness. In particular, strive to ask charitable clarification questions and avoid emotionally charged claims; e.g. that what I’m saying is bogus. Lastly, you are making many assumptions which you then use to knock down straw men arguments. Notes [1] I say this based on a larger number of upvotes than I would expect on a comment this deep in the tree. This information is asymmetric; I recognize that you do not have access to it. I wonder what your assessment of this will be. - If you think I’m lying, this would confirm what you want to believe about my comment being off topic and bogus. - If you think I’m telling the truth, it would challenge your claims.
- xpe 3y ago
  > I often detect motion in my peripheral vision without much detail. Maybe once a year (or less), I see weird things that seem implausible, but only for brief instant. When I look, there is nothing unusual. I want to elaborate on one personal experience I alluded to above. I am curious if others have experienced anything similar. While driving at about 20 mph across some train tracks, I noticed in my left peripheral vision a parked vehicle with its rear door open. For a tiny instant, I perceived it roughly like dirt was “flowing out” of the car. When I looked more closely — and again, this happened in a fraction of a second — it was clear that a dog, probably a golden retriever, was jumping out. So my first fleeting perceptual experience got the motion roughly correct (movement out of a back seat onto the ground) and color (light brown) correct. It got the object wrong. From what I can tell, this is a consistent subjective experience with the predictive processing model. It seems to me if one did not subscribe to the predictive processing model, one would expect the brain to only register a vague blur. I think it is also worth mentioning that in the days leading up to that experience I had a DIY project where I dug a deep hole, and I put a bucket in the bottom which I filled before lifting it out and dumping it. (This was more efficient than doing one shovel load at a time.) This digging was not an expedient process which could have led my brain to spend energy processing better ways to do it.
otikik 3y ago
There’s also perverse monetary incentives. “We need to increase tourism on the Town. Cowille business is booming since they had that Virgin Mary apparition. Anne-Marie, could that shape that you saw while tending the sheep be the Spirit of Saint Peter?”
mnky9800n 3y ago
UFO sightings are much less interesting then abductions. Sightings require almost no effort and ultimately can be explained away. But people who claim to be abducted basically are giving up the assumption they will ever be taken seriously again. So why tell others? Are there some subset of abductees who were actually taken? We certainly do the same to other animals so there's no reason why it wouldn't be done to us.
- goolz 3y ago
  I mean, there sure are a lot of mentally unstable people who actively choose to detach from reality. To some, living in a fantasy land is as simple as ignoring the truth around you.
- GTP 3y ago
  > So why tell others? Some people just like having the attention of other people, so it could still be an invented story just to have a great story to tell to the few that believe it.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    While being ridculed by all the rest? You have a weird idea of "wanted attention".
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      Ask George Santos. Maybe he so desperately wants his $500,000 bail guarantors to remain anonymous because they're aliens! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/nyregion/george-santos-bail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/nyregion/george-santos-ba...
cassepipe 3y ago
Tangential, but we tend to bring up the placebo effect pretty quickly in medical discussions about what works and doesn't but actually a lot of what people say is the result of placebo is just not even placebo but "natural" resorption, that is your body doing the work. Placebo is measurable, it's whether taking a "fake" cure is better than "natural" resorption. For some affections, the effect is surprisingly important for others quite negligible.

xpe 3y ago

It seems likely to me that “seeing things” is consistent with the predictive processing model from cognitive neuroscience. To summarize: the retina error-corrects a simulation provided from the cortex. Let’s say some visual details are fuzzy. With a strong enough Bayesian prior (e.g. belief in UFOs), the human perceptual apparatus could subjectively see things that look like UFOs. Mind bending, but this seems to me a credible and popular theory of brain functioning. I’m no expert and new to the theory. Please correct me if I’m butchering it. P.S. Like anyone, I often detect motion in my peripheral vision without much detail. Maybe once a year (or less), I see weird things that seem implausible, but only for brief instant. When I look, there is nothing unusual. Yes, bring on the “what are you smoking?” comments… but I assure you the answer is “nothing”.

gitfan86 3y ago
Yes, that seems right. Humans fill in the gaps. AI is similar, where it "hallucinates", but are humans that much different?
friendzis 3y ago
While this is not a well studied phenomenon, as in to the extent of having well formed theory, we do know that eyes constantly perform micromovements. One of the prevailing hypotheses states that due to low inherent resolution of the retina these micromovements are used to create sort of sub-pixel resolution. Hence, visual cortex inherently works in predictive/generative mode with constant feedback correction. This hypothesis is sometimes used to explain phenomena like pareidolia and might as well be used to explain perception of UFOs.
Loquebantur 3y ago
You are hallucinating complete nonsense here. Just think for a second, if such a thing was possible, why would it be restricted to "UFOs"? Obviously, such an illness would be well known.
- George83728 3y ago
  > if such a thing was possible, why would it be restricted to "UFOs"? Who said it is? Tons of people report seeing all manner of nonsense.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    The prevalence of mental illnesses leading to visual hallucination is very low actually. The idea of whole departments in the US government being staffed with them is absurdist nonsense.
    - gitfan86 3y ago
      "normally functioning" brains see things that are not actually there ALL the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion Most UFO reports fall into the Optical Illusion category rather than extreme schizophrenia.
      - Loquebantur 3y ago
        Optical illusions are not at all the same thing as visual hallucinations. Your allegation about UFO reports is accordingly simply incorrect.
        gitfan86 3y ago
        Right, so your point about people not having hallucinations frequently is valid. But most people do see optical illusions. So it seems strange that you have jumped to the conclusion that these must be real UFOs since most people do not hallucinate.
xpe 3y ago
> Recent empirical work from independent laboratories shows strong, overly precise priors can engender hallucinations in healthy subjects and that individuals who hallucinate in the real world are more susceptible to these laboratory phenomena. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(18)30282-1 https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S136... Trends in Cognitive Science OPINION | VOLUME 23, ISSUE 2, P114-127, FEBRUARY 2019 Hallucinations and Strong Priors Philip R. Corlett, Guillermo Horga, Paul C. Fletcher, Ben Alderson-Day, Katharina Schmack, Albert R. Powers III Open Access Published: December 21, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  First of, this is completely off-topic, since the whistleblower reports being briefed on non-human technology in possession of the US, which is being intensively studied. Further, their related "sightings" are corroborated by multiple sensor systems simultaneously. And multiple pilots as well. Now, your idea of hallucinations being an explanation for such sightings, obviously impossible due to said sensors systems in the first place, is utter bogus since not only do you not have "strong priors" in such a situation, you also do not employ people suffering from hallucinations as pilots for mulit-million dollar fighter jets to begin with. Your article finally describes an entirely different phenomenon than "seeing an object consistently for an extended period of time". Which is what is relevant here.
  - xpe 3y ago
    You are not the final arbiter of what is on topic. Topics are subjective and connected cognitively differently by different people. Also, in my view, my comment is directly on topic to the message it replies to. [1] I’m curious about your user experience with Hacker News. Do you use the normal web interface or some other UI? I’m sorry to ask the obvious question, but I do want to rule it out: do you realize that comments are situated relative to the parent comment, right? Now, after factoring this in, do you see how my comment is a response to its parent? If you’d like to think about it mathematically, try this. The original post could be characterized as having a topic vector in a many dimensional space. Each subsequent reply can be characterized similarly. As you get deeper in the conversation tree, the topic vectors diverge significantly. This does not mean a somewhat distant (in topic vector space) comment is “off-topic”. Quite to the contrary, it means the original post has generated a rich variety of discussion. This said, I take your point that transitory perceptual errors do not explain all UFO sightings, nor do they directly bear on the whistleblower’s main claims. One can make such a point without being prickly about it. I’m sorry that you seem upset here and in your comments generally across the threads here. I can relate to some degree; there is is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to the topics of evidence and people’s ability to evaluate truth claims. I can also relate to prioritizing factual assessments at the expense of tact and empathy towards others. For many years of my life I did this, and it did not serve me well. It is your responsibility to not take out on your frustrations on me or anyone else. Treat us with respect or your reputation may suffer. If you manage a civil tone, I will engage with you further. Otherwise, I don’t see it being productive enough to warrant the effort. To be specific, I suggest reviewing the HN Guideliness. In particular, strive to ask charitable clarification questions and avoid emotionally charged claims; e.g. that what I’m saying is bogus. Lastly, you are making many assumptions which you then use to knock down straw men arguments. Notes [1] I say this based on a larger number of upvotes than I would expect on a comment this deep in the tree. This information is asymmetric; I recognize that you do not have access to it. I wonder what your assessment of this will be. - If you think I’m lying, this would confirm what you want to believe about my comment being off topic and bogus. - If you think I’m telling the truth, it would challenge your claims.
xpe 3y ago
> I often detect motion in my peripheral vision without much detail. Maybe once a year (or less), I see weird things that seem implausible, but only for brief instant. When I look, there is nothing unusual. I want to elaborate on one personal experience I alluded to above. I am curious if others have experienced anything similar. While driving at about 20 mph across some train tracks, I noticed in my left peripheral vision a parked vehicle with its rear door open. For a tiny instant, I perceived it roughly like dirt was “flowing out” of the car. When I looked more closely — and again, this happened in a fraction of a second — it was clear that a dog, probably a golden retriever, was jumping out. So my first fleeting perceptual experience got the motion roughly correct (movement out of a back seat onto the ground) and color (light brown) correct. It got the object wrong. From what I can tell, this is a consistent subjective experience with the predictive processing model. It seems to me if one did not subscribe to the predictive processing model, one would expect the brain to only register a vague blur. I think it is also worth mentioning that in the days leading up to that experience I had a DIY project where I dug a deep hole, and I put a bucket in the bottom which I filled before lifting it out and dumping it. (This was more efficient than doing one shovel load at a time.) This digging was not an expedient process which could have led my brain to spend energy processing better ways to do it.

otikik 3y ago

There’s also perverse monetary incentives. “We need to increase tourism on the Town. Cowille business is booming since they had that Virgin Mary apparition. Anne-Marie, could that shape that you saw while tending the sheep be the Spirit of Saint Peter?”

mnky9800n 3y ago

UFO sightings are much less interesting then abductions. Sightings require almost no effort and ultimately can be explained away. But people who claim to be abducted basically are giving up the assumption they will ever be taken seriously again. So why tell others? Are there some subset of abductees who were actually taken? We certainly do the same to other animals so there's no reason why it wouldn't be done to us.

goolz 3y ago
I mean, there sure are a lot of mentally unstable people who actively choose to detach from reality. To some, living in a fantasy land is as simple as ignoring the truth around you.
GTP 3y ago
> So why tell others? Some people just like having the attention of other people, so it could still be an invented story just to have a great story to tell to the few that believe it.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  While being ridculed by all the rest? You have a weird idea of "wanted attention".
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    Ask George Santos. Maybe he so desperately wants his $500,000 bail guarantors to remain anonymous because they're aliens! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/nyregion/george-santos-bail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/nyregion/george-santos-ba...

cassepipe 3y ago

Tangential, but we tend to bring up the placebo effect pretty quickly in medical discussions about what works and doesn't but actually a lot of what people say is the result of placebo is just not even placebo but "natural" resorption, that is your body doing the work. Placebo is measurable, it's whether taking a "fake" cure is better than "natural" resorption. For some affections, the effect is surprisingly important for others quite negligible.