Ghost photobombs

[sideshowbob]

No...it doesn't explain why he or the little girl didn't react to the police officer...

Are you denying the results of the experiment? Did you repeat the experiment to show that the results are wrong? Can you explain why you think the results are wrong?

Did you do the video experiment that somebody posted above to prove that your own perceptions are omniscient? Until you can demonstrate that the expermental evidence is wrong, you're just arguing from incredulity.

... or why he appears in one photo but not the others.

You keep making assumptions about information that you don't have. You don't know how far apart the photos were taken.

I can tell the skeptics are losing when they try to impugn human perception itself as too faulty and unreliable to see what is right in front of it.

It isn't about impugning human perception. It's about understanding human perception. If you think you know better than everybody else, do the experiments.

 

[Magical Realist]

It isn't about impugning human perception. It's about understanding human perception. If you think you know better than everybody else, do the experiments.

I already know I can be distracted and tricked. I watch magic shows all the time. That's not the issue here. Nobody was being distracted or tricked when the photo was taken. It was just plain everyday accurate perception. And with a camera to boot. You just can't handwave away the facts of this case. It is what it is.

 

[sideshowbob]

I already know I can be distracted and tricked. I watch magic shows all the time. That's not the issue here.

It's exactly the issue. If you can be distracted/misdirected/misled deliberately, it's only because those are the natural reactions of your perceptions.

Have you done the experiments yet?

Nobody was being distracted or tricked when the photo was taken.

You don't know that. It's dishonest to pretend that you do.

It was just plain everyday accurate perception.

Plain everyday perception is notoriously inaccurate. If you were honest enough to do a little research, you'd know that just like everybody else does.

And with a camera to boot.

And cameras are notoriously bad at accurately depicting what you point them at. That's why photobombs work.

 

[Magical Realist]

And cameras are notoriously bad at accurately depicting what you point them at.

LOL! No they aren't. They are very good at depicting what you point them at. You should study photography some time. It's all based on real science.

Plain everyday perception is notoriously inaccurate. If you were honest enough to do a little research, you'd know that just like everybody else does.

LOL! No it isn't. I am 58 years old and have driven maybe a million miles in my lifetime relying on my perception of all that is around me and am still alive to tell the tell. If perception were inaccurate nobody would be able to drive. But we all do. That in a nutshell demolishes your claim that perception is unreliable.

 

[sideshowbob]

LOL! No they aren't. They are very good at depicting what you point them at. You should study photography some time. It's all based on real science.



LOL! No it isn't. I am 58 years old and have driven maybe a million miles in my lifetime relying on my perception of all that is around me and am still alive to tell the tell. If perception were inaccurate nobody would be able to drive. But we all do. That in a nutshell demolishes your claim that perception is unreliable.

You can not be for real. You have got to be a troll. Nobody could possibly be that ignorant of reality. And no, that is not an ad hominem.

You have not addressed one single thing that I have said about perception. Have you done the experiments? Can you explain the results?

Have you figured out yet that "moving" pictures are not really moving, even though you perceive them as moving?

 

[DaveC426913]

If perception were inaccurate nobody would be able to drive.

If perception were accurate, nobody would ever have accidents.

... perception is unreliable

This isn't an opinion. It's not open to a vote.

It is universally understood that perception is only a shadow of reality. Yup. It gets us through 95% of our lives, because most of our lives are dealing with things we've dealt with before.

But the number of ways things can go wrong once we're outside out comfort zone is a testament to the fact that perception is simply not reliable to the degree necessary to assert that ghosts are real.

 

[Magical Realist]

You can not be for real. You have got to be a troll. Nobody could possibly be that ignorant of reality. And no, that is not an ad hominem.

You have not addressed one single thing that I have said about perception. Have you done the experiments? Can you explain the results?

Have you figured out yet that "moving" pictures are not really moving, even though you perceive them as moving?

Perception is both accurate and reliable as proven by over 7 billion people who use it to survive every day of their lives. You can't deny this. It's just the way things are.

 

[Magical Realist]

If perception were accurate, nobody would ever have accidents.

That probably has more to do with the speed of their reactions than with the accuracy of their perceptions while driving. That and sleepiness, intoxication, distraction, etc. Factors like that.

 

[sideshowbob]

Perception is both accurate and reliable as proven by over 7 billion people who use it to survive every day of their lives.

7 billion people perceive "moving" pictures as moving but they're not actually moving. Do you understand that?

 

[Magical Realist]

7 billion people perceive "moving" pictures as moving but they're not actually moving. Do you understand that?

The pictures are moving. They are moving over a light and being projected on a screen.

Seriously, this is your last argument for the unreliability of perception?

 

[DaveC426913]

That probably has more to do with the speed of their reactions than with the accuracy of their perceptions while driving.

Someone with unfailing perception would never find themselves short of reaction time. They would always see it coming.

This is why driverless cars are saving lives - directly due to humans being abysmal at perception.

That and sleepiness, intoxication, distraction, etc. Factors like that.

Yup. All factors that inhibit perception.

 

[Magical Realist]

Someone with unfailing perception would never find themselves short of reaction time. They would always see it coming.

Yes they would. They would see a car coming but not be able to apply the brake in time. Happens all the time.

Yup. All factors that inhibit perception.

Right..because inhibited perception is unreliable, but not normal perception. Sinking in yet?

OMG..I just realized all the responses I have posted in this thread may make no sense whatsoever since my perception of my computer screen is so unreliable.

 

[sideshowbob]

The pictures are moving. They are moving over a light and being projected on a screen.

The frames of film are moving but each frame is a still shot. It is not moving. The image on the screen is actually a succesion of still shots but your brain fills in the blanks so that you percieve it as a moving image. Huckleberry Hound actually moved two inches across the background in one jump but your brain interpreted it as continuous smooth movement. Do you understand that so far?

 

[Magical Realist]

The frames of film are moving but each frame is a still shot. It is not moving. The image on the screen is actually a succesion of still shots but your brain fills in the blanks so that you percieve it as a moving image. Huckleberry Hound actually moved two inches across the background in one jump but your brain interpreted it as continuous smooth movement. Do you understand that so far?

This is getting tedious. Your whole claim of perception being unreliable is now going to hinge on our seeing images moving as projected from a moving film over light? How does this detract from the eye's ability to perceive the motion of real objects?

 

[sideshowbob]

How does this translate into the eye's ability to perceive motion of real objects?

I'm glad you asked that question because I was going to tell you anyway.

The eye sees a series of still pictures and passes them on to the brain. The brain interprets them as motion. Fair enough. Huckleberry Hound is at position A at the beginning of the series and at position B at the end of the series. He must have moved from A to B. That stands to reason.

Are you still keeping up? To review: individual still pictures, not moving, but the brain tells you there is movement.

What does this have to do with the topic, you ask? Well, we're comparing a series of still pictures with a series of still pictures, aren't we? We know what happened in each still picture but we don't know what happened between the pictures. In the movie, the brain made it up. That's how perception works.

And yet, in the series of still pictures, where you don't even know the time interval between the pictures, you think you can proclaim with 100% accuracy what happened between the pictures?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is getting tedious. Your whole claim of perception being unreliable is now going to hinge on our seeing images moving as projected from a moving film over light?

If you don't want to be 'ad hom'ed' then don't act obtuse like the above.

SSB is showing you just one simple example that demonstrates your assertion is wrong (it only takes one to falsify your assertion). There are literally innumerable other examples. There is a whole science devoted to perception.

How does this translate into the eye's ability to perceive the motion of real objects?

This is not really a debate. We are not here to teach you basic human physiology. It takes a whole education.

You are welcome to believe that human perception is infallible, but it simply does not equate with what the rest of the world knows to be true.

Since this is a forum of science, you'll have to do better than 'I drive a lot and don't crash, therefore my perception is infallible'.

I can point you at any number of fascinating books on the subject, or you can go ask any police officer, judge, accident reconstruction engineer, or software designer, or practically any other profession who can show you how bad it is. If you were willing to learn, of course.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you still keeping up?

Yeah...You really shouldn't treat people like they're stupid. This is basic human socializing 101, which probably explains why you are on the internet all day.

Snip rest of boring pretentious treatise..

 

[Magical Realist]

If you don't want to be 'ad hom'ed' then don't act obtuse like the above.

Yeah..see it's ad homs like that that only gets you ignored. Capiche?

You are welcome to believe that human perception is infallible, but it simply does not equate with what the rest of the world knows to be true.

Never claimed perception is infallible. Just that it's overwhelmingly accurate and reliable. Just like your car isn't infallible but still overall very reliable.

We are not here to teach you basic human physiology.

The only thing you ever teach me is how far you will go to deny the evidence for ufos and ghosts. And that's not a matter of my education. It's a...well...let's not do the ad homs..

 

[sideshowbob]

Yeah...You really shouldn't treat people like their stupid

Have you even read the Wikipedia article on perception? Ignorance is forgivable but willful ignorance really is stupid. Please learn something instead of making yourself look bad.

 

[Magical Realist]

Have you even read the Wikipedia article on perception? Ignorance is forgivable but willful ignorance really is stupid. Please learn something instead of making yourself look bad.

You're the one ad homing. There's a whole section of sci forum rules about that. Why don't YOU go learn something?