Seems like there's a lot going on in this one. Margins around the centre box seem wider at the top than the bottom corners, but they aren't! The main outside box has a dippy wobble with the hole pin marks, which seems to make the eye's ~ brain keep trying to level it up and unify it all.
Ooh a new word for me. I love it.
I also like that. Neat.
I've managed to get my printer to accept 250gsm Bristol Board paper. I know I should wait to get some scissors and glue and learn how to do mountain folds and valley fold BEFORE I post the templates but I'm excited. I'll let you know how they turn out (unless I mess up).
I've got, or had, one of those, they're really good
I suppose when you know it's just a mirage, then the brain knows it's just a mirage, and adjusts the interpretation of input from the eye as visually being a distorted truth?
My take away was that we know it's a mirage, but think it looks like water on the pavement; however the actual image in the mirage is the sky. We see it as water because our brain refuses to see sky because it's not a possibility for our brain.
My brain tells me it more-or-less was 'brownmane,' but then along comes doubt, so could also be a sort of distorted truth!My take away was that we know it's a mirage, but think it looks like water on the pavement; however the actual image in the mirage is the sky. We see it as water because our brain refuses to see sky because it's not a possibility for our brain.
After rereading, perhaps that is what you already said in your post
"A 2019 study sought to find exactly where perception lies in the hierarchy of visual processing". In other words Biologists with access to a MRI scanner are covering the same ground (vision vs perception) that experimental Psychologists have been banging on about for the past 50 years.
I would suspect, only from the explanation of the highway mirage, that our brain over rules what we actually see. VERY interesting from a Fortean perspective.
Small….. far away. Small…..far away.
That's interesting. It suggests bottom up processing, rather than top down.
Links, I think, with a tendency to perveive detail rather than a whole picture?
Maybe manifests as perceiving detail, as opposed to an interpretation of what is there based on a context derived from social cues.
Interesting. If we go back to the frequently -posited idea that adult brains (and here I am taking that noun to mean neurotypical brains) simply filter out anomalous visual input as it does not mesh with expectations, then is this ^^ an argument against the objective reality of many Fortean phenomena? Unless there is a large corpus of reports from autistic people that I don't know of.
Maybe it's just that they (autistic people) don't have the means, or so much need, to question or to quantify, what they see. . . other than, 'it is?'
Maybe that's true for some, sure. But not every autistic person experiences their autism in the same way. Certainly, I'm aware I have a strong urge to categorise and quantify (although, of course, that exact same caveat applies here, too). There are at least some autistic people for whom the next stage, after the "it is", would likely be "it's odd, though." And that response might lead them to share their experience with others.
I remember an article from some long defunct science magazine (1980s), discussing autism and autistic art. It had a technically very good drawing of someone riding a horse, drawn by a child. Of course, the child did not draw the rider's far leg, because it was not visible from the child's viewpoint. This was compared with a drawing by a non-autistic child, which was (from an artistic viewpoint) much inferior, and the rider was drawn with two legs, even though one shouldn't have been visible, because the child knew that the rider had two legs and therefore drew them. The autistic child drew what he/she saw, without necessarily comprehending it, while the non-autistic child interpreted what he/she saw and drew their understanding of what they were viewing.
I agree - in fact, that's the point I'm driving at: if there is a group of people who tend not to embellish or otherwise augment the visual input their brains receive, and if this group of people is not reporting accounts of visual anomalies, does that tend to support the hypothesis that such accounts are in fact the result of people making things up (consciously or otherwise, perhaps influenced by expectations and contexts)? In other words, that there is no objective reality to such phenomena?
Yes, lets try putting autistic fortean reports (if any) above non-autistic pilots etc.
it's half identified as failing to merge the two etyes into one vision, but still seeing each in detail.
