Peripheral vision -- more to it than meets the eye?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by River Ape, Jun 25, 2009.

  1. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    About twenty years ago, when I was working in academia, I met a fellow psychologist (I remember his name was Paul) who was pursuing postgraduate research in the field of peripheral vision. This subject falls within the purview of psychology as well, of course, as of optometry and vision science. It is not a major area of interest to psychologists, but it has attracted experimentation and a fair number of papers have been published over the years.

    Paul became desperately interested in peripheral vision “in real life” (away from the laboratory). At all times, he became fascinated by how people's attention could be attracted by movement far away from the direction in which they were actually looking. People seemed to detect movement not only “out of the corner of the eye”, but somehow beyond it.

    The cat entered the room quite silently. The door was, there was no doubt about it, somewhat behind rather than in front of a straight line drawn throught the woman from shoulder to shoulder. She was facing her father, four or five feet in front of her, with whom she was in conversation. At the moment that the cat paused just inside the doorway, she turned her head away from her father, in a swift and deliberate movement, to look directly at the animal.

    There is a logical explanation. Her father had seen the cat and his eyes had flickered in that direction. She had picked up this cue, realised that he had seen something, and turned so that she herself could see what it was.

    Paul became tremendously impressed by the power of people's peripheral vision. It is a rarely discussed faculty, but perception at the extreme limit of vision must have been vitally important for survival in past times. He would look for explanations when people seemed to exhibit powers of perception that defied what was logically possible.

    Even so, he found himself wondering whether there was some power of peripheral perception that went beyond the visual, aural, or olfactory. This would not be something weird or magical, but something with a completely rational explanation that had not been factored in – rather as communication by pheramone was once outside the understanding of science.

    Every so often I witness a demonstration of peripheral vision that gives me pause for thought. Have others ever found themselves wondering about this topic? If there is some unknown mental agency at work, it may not be far removed from the power to make someone turn round by staring at their back. Or perhaps you lack that ability?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I've seen people turn around but it was because of a slight noise that was heard by them, not seeing anything before they looked though.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    OK . . . now try this exercise . . . the previous logical explanation is withdrawn.

    We change the scenario previously described. The woman is not conversing with her father; she is regarding a recently-acquired picture hanging on the wall. It is not glazed, and there are no mirrors anywhere in the room. There is no one else in the room. It is daytime, and the light-source in the room is sunlight from the window to her left. The doorway is to her right and leads into a hall/lobby, and from where she is standing it is some 10 or 15 degrees beyond (behind) the extreme rightward limit of her peripheral vision. The cat has passed through the doorway in perfect silence, and it cannot be detected by smell.

    As the cat pauses just inside the room, the woman turns swiftly to look at it directly. Suggest a perfectly logical reason why her attention might have been attracted to the animal. (This is not a trick question; it is an invitation to exercise your imagination.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    So, sound and smell are out.

    So is sight, because it is behind her.

    That leaves taste and touch.

    Taste is out, unless she has a highly developed sense organ other humans don't.

    So I'll go with touch.

    I'm guessing she felt pressure on the floor boards, and wondered why there was something heavy behind her?
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Or a change in air flow felt by the hairs on the body (arms etc)?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Firstly you maybe underestimating the subliminal abilities we possess. Those abilities that are nested deep in the subconscious. We assume usually that an ability has to be conscious to us for us to use but of course this is not necessarilly the case. The human body /mind has many suconscious abilities that we are not supposed to have to deal with in a conscious way, being mostly autonomic and reflexive]
    The sense of smell is often subliminal and not conscious at all. Sexual attraction for example is not based on consciously recognisable scents but could be scents of a subliminal nature.

    The cat entering the room would be quite strong to the subliminal mind and draw attention. Especially if the person was familiar subliminally to the signature of that scent and receptive to it at the time.

    So peripheral sight distractions/attractions can be governed by subliminal olfactory reactions.
    As to proper researching this area I have no idea what is available as there appears to be a severe lack of interest when it comes to understanding subliminal scents. The "pseudo-occult" form of aromatherapy has been around for ages with the use of esssential oils etc

    Secondly,
    I have often asked why severe mental illnesses such a acute paranoid schizophrenia, depression and the like could not have causation in air born pheramones distracting a persons ability to exercise self control and proper judgement, but so far there has been in over 4 years of asking no adequate response. Preference given almost exclusively to hormonal imballances [pharmaceutical industry vested interests at work no doubt - as they are the only serioius monied research organisations] with out any association to olfactory dysfunctions due to hyper sensitivities.
    They may say " we blocked their noses and still they had issues"

    [you may also remember that intuitively psych nursing staff and police know that isolating the patient from other humans [ padded cell ] thus distancing the scents can sometimes be the only way to bring a patinet down from a hyper state]

    I ask have you ever needed to block a sharks nose from the smell of blood or prey? and add that humans are by far considerably more evolved than sharks. Saying that we have somehow forgotten our ancient abilities would be underestimating the rational of why they are subliminal and not conscious. [ask any Schizophrenic why they seems so damn busy in their heads all the time thus totally exhausted and you will get the point.]

    You will realise after asking that question that you may not have to inhale through the nose to smell subliminal scents.

    So it may be that peripheral vision can be exited and distracted due to subliminal scents especially those we recognise and that every cell in our body is part of the olfactory system. [skin cells have an ability to smell as well and asscoiated with propriorception functionality.]

    just some thoughts anyways...great thread btw
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  10. Xylene Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,398
  11. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Your replies all much appreciated.
    A very logical approach, visceral_instinct!
    Another plausible answer, Dywyddyr. (I was wondering wyddyr that name was Welsh.)
    Oh, no, Quantum Quack. Far be it from me to underestimate the subliminal! Indeed, the brain's selection of which data from the peripheral rods to respond to is subliminal. Most data is never referred to the conscious mind for consideration. The basis on which it is selected is an interesting area of research. Humans seem particularly responsive to two similar small circular shapes in roughly horizonal alignment.

    Here are another couple of explanations . . .

    The sunlight coming through the window to the woman's left reflects off the shiny wall of the lobby. The movement of the cat diminishes the amount of light striking the wall and/or re-entering the room through the doorway, creating a minute but detectable reduction in the total of ambient light. NB Laboratory experiments show that subjects can indeed detect such tiny fluctations (given otherwise static conditions).

    The pet mouse that the woman was stroking at the time gave a shriek of alarm, jumped down, and disappeared through a hole in the skirting board.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Don't give up! I feel sure there are still other explanations available!
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2009
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I would suggest that when looking at the cat it can be just coincidental. You should question how many times the woman looked around without any plan of finding anything, to find nothing but a doorway. We tend to brush off the reasoning that perhaps it's just us trying to keep our awareness of our surroundings and trying to make up for the desensitisation of our senses.

    If detection was of course caused by awareness, then it doesn't have to be any single sense that picks it up, in fact it can be from all the senses picking up something.

    As for pheromones. This is more played upon when dealing with perfumes since while the fragrance might be made to be nauseatingly sickly through it's alcohol content, it's also aiding in pheromones to be dispersed. I can remember it being suggested in some televised study results that such pheromones actually add to picking a compatible partner.

    In regards to Schizophrenics however, I would suggest it's more down to blocked pores, as skin needs to breath. If the skin pores are blocked through sweat or grease, then it will generate a feeling much like being suffocated or being placed in a small room and suffering claustrophobia. An individual in such a state will become irrational, irritated and angry.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Only secondarily. (Said he mysteriously)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And the pronunciation is similar: Tee oo ith ir.
    (Or were you thinking of Yr Wyddor Gymraeg?)
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Funnily enough the opposite may actually be found to be more true.

    The use of synthetic scents in perfume as distinct from natural scents needs to be researched a bit better.
    The perfume industry of course has a significant vested interest in "Chanel" type scents being held popular.

    General notes: I have found through observation that the use of synthetic scents actually helps to stabilise the "rampant" male [slow his arousal down] enough for him to function and actually approach a woman in a more self restrained manner. The use of repugnent, or astringent after shaves or colognes in men does the same to women.

    The use of natural scents however can drive men totally crazy thus defeating the nature of sane courtship. [ use of natural rose petal for example [ very expensive perfume I might add]]

    The call of the siren is in the Greek Mythos by Homes "Odyssey" if I remember correctly demonstrates just how strong the natural scent [song] of our "le fem" can be. So the use of a synthetic scent kills the ardor enough for the man to stay rational.....[well thats the hypothesis I guess....] and like wise with women.
    One could argue a reasonably strong case for the advent of the sexual revolution of the 60's was made possible in the main because artificial scents where being used in significant quantities.

    "possibly mans instinctive way of containing the aggressive nature of his lust with in him - post 1900 with the advent of articifical scents man has gone to war less often - notes on weak associations"
    edit:
    An interesting thought occurred after posting...

    "maybe we should donate artificial perfumes, aftershaves and colognes including under arm de-oderants etc to 3rd world countries ravaged by war and see what happens over the following 10 years or so..."

    ha...almost funny in very ironical way as one could say that their neighbour stinks so advice: use a deoderant...to make peace
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2009
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I do realise that your appreciation of this subject by far extends well beyond to that which you have alluded to in your innitial posting but I thought I'd play along any ways....of course you are well aware of the potentials of the subliminal mind.

    Including subliminal visual awarenesses.
    [if the eyes can discern nothingness [space, volume, vacuummous space distance across a void etc etc], then they are quite capable of discerning sub-visually those frequencies that fall outside the visible light or color spectrum.]
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Sorry River Ape I am aware that this is off topic but Stryder has posted something that I feel requires a response with out generating a thread directly on the issue [ as he is the moderator he may feel inclined to move this to another thread or what ever ]:

    Have you considered the notion that behaviour is always rooted in the reduction of suffering?

    Test statement:
    A schizophrenic will commonly avoid personal hygene issues due to the need to desensitise or in other words make himself less receptive.
    So instinctively or intuitively his behaviour will prevent him from showering or shaving or generally looking after his appearance as he wishes intuitively not to be attractive nor interesting to other people due to his over sensitivity to their scenting reactions.
    Thus a schizophrenic is happier with clogged olfactory senses than with clear and open ones. [ significant tobacco usage ensures de-sensitisation of the nasal olfactory receptors for starters.]
    The point of posting this is not just to go on about schizophrenics but to posit a slightly deeper approach to human behaviour both conscious and instinctive.
    The fundamental premise is "pain or suffering avoidance" at an instinctive level.
    Test statement:
    The behaviours of most "Street" people that are suffering endemic poverty, homelessness, and malnutrition etc etc is symptomatic of instinctive pain/suffering avoidance.

    The over indulgence of alcohol, alcoholism is commonly observed to fit into this category of behavours that being pain / suffering avoidance for example. Actually any addiction* could fit into this category. [ * addiction defined in this instance as social dysfunction due to preoccupation with pain or suffering avoidance]

    anyways again sorry River Ape I shall stop now and refer any further interest to another thread perhaps.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2009
  17. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    I am guessing that by "sub-visually" you are claiming that the eyes detect data which are not passed to the brain at a conscious level? Or did you mean something else? Do you have any evidence for this? The cones of bird and fish species which are known to be able to detect ultraviolet are of a different structure from human cones, I believe. (I claim no special expertise on this subject.)
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If the woman is on good terms with the cat, or cats and animals in general, this susceptibility to a cat's presence is not uncommon.
    I don't know how this works, but I know from personal experience that it does.
    For example, I often "just know" that the cat is in front of the door to the room I am in, even though the door is closed and the cat has made no audiable sound.

    Moreover, just as mothers of newborns often sensitise themselves to hearing their child's slightest sound, to sense their child's moves - even if the child is in another room, and even if the mother is asleep, so people can become trained like that to their pets and other animals, and humans, as well.
     
  19. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    I decided to post this thread under Parapsychology rather than Human Science because it was probing the outer limits of perception. That said, Paul and I each belonged to psychology departments . . . not parapsychology departments! So what intrigues me is the search for logical clues as to why a person can appear to detect something that at first acquaintance seems beyond the normal power of their senses.

    In the years since my meeting with Paul I have paid more heed than before to instances of apparent extrasensory perception -- even though I no longer work in academia. I have often found the search for a logical explanation mentally stimulating. So, Signal, I urge you to be discontent with “I don't know how this works, but I know from personal experience that it does." Examine the evidence in expectation of a solution! For example, in the case of a cat, one may become more aware of its habitual behaviour and its response to various stimuli than one has ever consciously reflected upon.

    If anyone can recall an "Ah, so that explains it!" moment, please share it!

    Stryder has pointed out the coincidence factor. This, of course, is a potentially confounding element in all research!
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2009
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The thing that strikes me about your approach although I find admirable, is that the use of the condition "logical" or "rational" is determined by the limitations of knowledge and experience of the person asking for that condition.
    For example : If I constantly and pseudo-deliberately am able to "see" human auras that fall in a different plane of existence to the typical hard reality that we all share then does this make my input to the subject less logical than someone else who has had no experience with auras or other sub-visual elements.
    Or for example I can detect at a infra-red level in ways that can be quite pronounced but unpredictable, so much so that any deliberate attempt to evidence this ability fails. Does this experience now fall under the category of il-logical or irrational?
    It is true though if I attempt to convince others of the validity of my experience with out the evidence that THEY need then yes this would be irrational and illogical but yet again does this "convincement" behavior render the experience in question any less valid?

    Sure the attempt to convince others may be considered invalid but does this render that object of that attempt invalid?

    You have asked for evidence that can be used to support the notion of sub visual ability, the ability to "see" beyond the usual visual spectrum. Does not being able to give you that evidence as you require make that experience any less valid or logical?

    In researching the paranormal and parapsychology over the years I have found that there are many abilities that would normally remain at a deep subconscious level that have manifested into peoples consciousness and due to the fact that these abilities [ including the seeing of auras and magnetic fields etc ] require non-will participation [ remain autonomic ] their evidenciablility is almost impossible due to their dysfunction when promoted deliberately with full volition. [ normally reflexive or instinctive behavior is destroyed by use of volition as you no doubt already know]

    So the "seeing " of auras that fall into the grey area of pseudo deliberate /instinctive are exceptionally difficult and frustrating when attempting to evidence in a way that is commonly required by science.

    The cat in question may actually be sending a scent precursor that tells the recipient " Hello mom I am here" for all we know. To which the cats owner will respond with "I see you" in acknowledgment of the cats "hello"
    Now we are not talking paranormal or psychic phenomena we are actually talking about a more mechanistic approach to what was once considered as psychic behaviour... sound familiar doesn't it?

    After all you are attempting to explain peripheral vision using "logical" and rational" explanations that would other wise be deemed ESP or psychic in nature.
    So in essence all you are attempting to do is the same as most people who experience so called "psychic" phenomena and that is ground it in logic and rational that can be accepted by the majority of the "evidence requiring" audience.

    So we turn what is thought of as superstition and rationalize it into a more objective reality....and there isn't anything wrong with that hey?
    I have found from deep personal experience and research that it is not the so called ability that is the issue but the emotional need to convince with out evidence that the ability is occurring sometimes at incredibly random moments.
    The ability to tolerate the isolation and loneliness that having a unique world view is para mount in maintianing sane and rational relationships with others. [ Fundamental psychology 101 concerning the need to find like minded individuals to minimise the sense of isolation and loneleiness - ie Vietnam war veterans Association, Returned soldiers league RSL, or Romani- Sinta associations, or AA or ALANON or PWP and other support groups and so on.]
    The most common complaint amongst persons suffering various so called mental disturbances and dysfunction is "NO one understands what I am experiencing" or "I am entiriely alone in this" and as you would normally expect they will feel totally isolated and alone in a community. Devestatingly alone and isolated to the pont where sleeping rough, societal dysfunction etc become the norm for that individual.
    All this simply because we denouce their experiences due to the lack of "proper" evidenciability.

    Science has much to answer for as well given that they can not support their own ideas adequately with the same evidencial requirement.

    For example: There is no evidence to support the current causation model for the light effects we take for granted. None...zilch...yet our whole attitude to reality is shaped by a model yet to be evidenced adequately. You talk of light and presume a travelling photon, that is to say a light particle travels from A to B and yet this has no evidence to support it and is mere speculation as to the causation of the light effect.

    So really is it more a case of the "pot calling the kettle black"? than good science?

    When science can prove the existance of the cause of the light effect [ traveling photon] then I shall endevour to prove the existence of psychic phenonema. Problem is neither exist outside science and it is only the inadequacy of science that prevents us from understanding the evidence all around us every day.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
  21. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Everything is energy. Energy reacts with itself through its many forms and manifestations, many times in ways poorly understood. Whos to say there was not a real energetic connection between the cat and the woman, sub consciously affecting her?

    Just because science hasnt found it, it isnt true!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and this is the point I guess of what I was trying to say.
    Yes there could be and to be honest it would be only logical to assume such, an energistic connection between the woman and the cat.
    Science will actualy support such a notion. However the only question is:
    "Does the human sensory perception have the capacity to detect such a connection?"
    There is no evidence to suggest that we can't yet there is ample anecdotal and circumstancial behavioural evidence to suggest that we most likely can.
    is it scientifically able to be proven?....possibly.
    Has it been evidenced adequately? ......no.

    seeing changes in ambient light for example is one such energistic connection that has been shown in experiiments and thus has credibility. What is light but an energy exchange?...so the logic follows...
     
  23. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    The example of pheromones teaches us that entirely new sensory abilities may come to light. However, once the existence of pheromones was proved, scientific method was able to progress our understanding to its current level.

    In these days when all civilised people tend to wear shoes, the power of the feet (shared with some other animals) to chemically detect the elements with which they are in contact tends to be unexplored. But if it was considered to exist at more than the most rudimentary level, we could begin to conduct experiments to extend our knowledge.

    Now you refer to the infrared. My response is that the realm of the infrared is an extremely simple one to explore. The thermographic camera is a very standard (and inexpensive) piece of laboratory and industrial equipment. Your claimed ability to detect infrared could easily be examined, perhaps with reasonable expectation that your reliability could be improved upon. You should invest in the necessary equipment, design appropriate experiments, and embark upon a scientific quest for knowledge!
     

Share This Page