"Throughout history there have been people who say it is all illusion. I think they may be right. But if they are right what could this mean? If you just say "It's all an illusion" this gets you nowhere - except that a whole lot of other questions appear. Why should we all be victims of an illusion, instead of seeing things the way they really are? What sort of illusion is it anyway? Why is it like that and not some other way? Is it possible to see through the illusion? And if so what happens next." From Dr Susan Blackmore. I like this. There is not only insufficient evidence to suggest that our own senses can be trusted, but rather overwhelming evidence that they cannot. How is it that we seem to be designed to want to test anything? If we knew that our senses were adequate measures we would never have developed anything like a scientific method to check? Why do we bother if we aren't going to want to know what we find out? "How do we know that we know what we think that we know?" ("Russberg")
Thanks for the interesting link. But... I don't understand your reply to the paper. What does it have to do with the subject of Blackmore's work?
Only that our own brains are designed to deceive us, yet we seem to have an inbuilt ability too to 'see around it'?
Because I have a masters degree in cognitive psychology, with a specialization in philosophy of mind. that's why.
I think it's fair to say Merlijn knows this psychology stuff fairly well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whatsherface The fun part is, that when I post in the math & physics dept. people are always willing to listen taking my posts serious. But when I post here, often I get those childish remarks as those from you. I haven't even finished my Bachelor's in mathematics, but I got a master's in psychology PLUS 1,5 years of scientific research experience! How is that for strange? Ofcourse I don't have the kind of reputation etc. of Blackmore. But since you asked for it: here we go..... Here is a paper of me, it was for a graduate course in Human Machine Interaction at the "Vrije" University Amsterdam- it's not published in a journal, but I got 90% for it (and I did not put it on the inernet myself): Cockpit Display Design and Earospace Safety This paper resulted in an invitation of the US naval airforce to participate on a conference on (dis)orientation and spatial awareness (I could not go because of obligations at the university). I published a piece for the European Space Agency (a usability test for the ISS project) that is classified, so can't give more details. here is one in an international journal: Acta Psychologica Vol. 106 (2001) pp. 121-145. (auth. Los, S.A., Knol, D.L. & Boers, R.M.) I can send you a reprint if you like Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On the more philosophical side of psychology: Here is a unfinished paper on a subject related to Blackmore's work: On the Necessity of Representations in Perception-Action I never got the chance to properly finish this paper because the government thought philosophy is not important enough for funding. Now change your name to : whatsthelookonherface Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree with my dear cousin Merlijn that your (whatsherface's) comments don't seem to refer to the central gist of the article (but rather just to some of the sidelines), but his second post was uncalled for. Clearly you did read the article. I don't see though what him having published anything has to do with it. He never claimed that the ideas in the article were wrong. As for that article.... It's very interesting indeed, and it makes a lot of sense to me. There is one thing though: Dr. Blackmore mentions "putting in a probe" and I can see what this does, but... How does it work? Who puts in the probe? Is it a "conscious effort"? Or is it triggered by some thing or event? Oh! The wonders of recursion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Damn! You beat me to it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have a nice holiday! Now it's time for Ally McBeal.
Hee hoi C1earwater, dear cousin, etc. The reason why I posted my "did you even care to read it" was because I was angry. I know it's unfair. But when it concearnes psychology (nearly) everybody thinks to be an expert, I think my thoughts were "oh ...here we go again". It just pisses me off. In fact some time ago, I nearly left the forums bacause of just that. SEE ATTACHEMENT BTW I think blackmore's article is fun, but not at all an eye-opener. nothing new there. BUT you're right C1earwater, I should apologize to whatsthelookonherface. I was out of line with my remark. edit: apologies.
Merlijn ... Read your paper, "Cockpit Display Design and Earospace Safety" with interest. Particualarly the segment dealing with "Spatialized Auditory Displays" A paper you might find interesting: Nelson, W. T., Hettinger, L. J., Cunningham, J. A., Brickman, B. J., Haas, M. W., McKinley, R. M. (1998). "The Effects of Localized Auditory Information on Visual Target Detection Performance Using a Helmet‑Mounted Display." Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have no credientials Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So my post will probably offer the more learned of you lots of clay pigeons so get your shotguns readyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I dont think there is one stream of conciousness, its a multilayer kind of thing with mundane ruductionist ego concoiusness at one end and a conciousness that includes everything at the other. The author seems to be primarily concerned with ego conciousness (actually she seems to me to be pointing at other level of conciousness without actually saying so or naming them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) The differences between levels of conciousness are the boundaries each level accepts. Ego conciousness works from the frame of the "little man in the head driving the body around like it was a vehicle" and is a story you tell yourself about yourself. The stream of self-referiential thought-feelings that is ego conciousness is about splitting the world into discrete bits to make it managable and to give the illusion of immortality. When its realised the body can die, the recourse is fleeing to the ego and splitting the world up into ego time, the smaller the time increments the better because that allows one to put death at a further distance. This might be the first fundamental split. After this one the others are easy. You can even split the ego further if theres something you need to deny (shadow, multiple personalitys). Not that im especially impugning the ego, there really nice to have, prevent one from stepping in fron of a bus Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! etc. Having made this split, the world becomes a series of fragmented bits instead of a whole and we realize weve lost something so, the intution of something lost leads us to measure, test and examine hoping to find it somehow in the shards. " How is it that we seem to be designed to want to test anything? If we knew that our senses were adequate measures we would never have developed anything like a scientific method to check? Why do we bother if we aren't going to want to know what we find out? " That the reason for the looking and the denial. My thinking has been heavily influnced by Ken Wilber and traditional buddhist psychology, in case you want to know where Im coming from.