Not relevant to the discussion on language, but this optical illusion is a fine example of how the brain can mess up its interpretation of visual data. It can also be used to win money, since nobody will believe it till they check. I didn’t.
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
Now a request/hijack: way back in the early '90s, Richard Dawkins did a Christmas lecture for the Royal Institution. He mentioned something interesting about motion perception - we see moving objects as moving because their image moves across the retina. But for this to work, the voluntary movement of our eyeballs has to be compensated for, otherwise you’d interpret objects as moving left when you looked right, and vice versa.
If my memory serves, he described an experiment whereby someone paralysed their own extraocular muscles with injected drugs, so their eyeballs wouldn’t move. They then proceeded to attempt to look left, right, up and down. Although their eyeballs didn’t move, the compensating mechanism attempted to adjust for the expected movement of the eye and they percieved non-existent motion of the world as a consequence. I’ve been unable to locate any references to this experiment on the Internet, and I’d be grateful if anyone could provide a link or shed any light.
Dawkin’s used this experiment as evidence that the visual world we percieve is an internal construct of our interpretive brain hardware rather than a direct data feed from our eyes. In fact I’m sure he used the phrase “virtual reality”. I don’t know how valid this conclusion is, but it might shed some light on phenomena such as “change blindness”.
Pure linguistics … there’s something about that which I find funny, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Certainly though, compared to the literary scholarship I’m used to, it’s almost an exact science.
I am European (see ‘The Netherlands’, not just my current location, but except for one year in Stockholm that’s where I’ve spent the last and first 30 years of my life). My English, on the other hand, is supposed to be Brittish originally, but I’m trying more and more to adjust it to my audience (Americans, Canadians, Australians, Brits, or people to whom English is also a second language - in which case I for instance like to revert to a Dutch accent).
I was in university from 1992 to 1998, studying Artificial Intelligence and English (specialising in Literature) respectively, switching from the first to the second during 1993.
I’ve thought about this a lot, actually. I think a very important part is reinventing schooling. It’s so out of date compared to what we know about how people learn in so many ways. I’ve thought about writing a book in which I describe what I see as an ideal school-system. By focussing on how people learn and making a school system adjusted to that, we’ll go a long way. But of course we also need to put in some basic stuff, like rules that prevent indoctrination.
It’s more complicated than that. The distance to the left and right eye of the moving object changes, for one thing, so does size and so does its position relative to other objects. Then the eye also has parts to the side of the retina that are much more sensitive to observing movement than others, and your eye moves partly to keep the moving bits in that area, depending on what it or you want to see.
I think this has to do also with focus on the moving object versus the background. But yes, this experiment can be more easily done by simply swivelling round hard on your desk chair and then stopping again and watching the world spin while you don’t. Another interesting experiment is moving your finger from left to right in front of your eyes with your computerscreen on the background. Why do you think you see your finger like an old cartoon animation, but you look at the screen and it appears to be a steady flow of light?
However, if you look to the left or right of your screen, and you can see in the corner of your eye that your screen is flashing a bit, you probably have a CRT and your videocard is configured below 75hz.
In principle, I think it is very obvious that the world is signified in our brain - without our brain, the optic nerve only transmits a meaningless chaos of light, after all, no matter what the eye focusses on.
Well, I’m learning new things all the time! But if you shut one eye and jiggle the eyeball of your closed eye with a finger pressing on your lower eyelid, the world does jiggle up and down. The relative motion of the image across your retina is interpreted as motion of the world. If you voluntarily move your open eye around in the normal way, the world is percieved as stationary. Somewhere in your hardware, there is a compensation for voluntary eye movement. If I remember the experiment correctly, that compensation still takes place even if your eyeballs are prevented from moving. This gives the impression of movement in the same direction that you try to move your eyes, to compensate for the expected tracking of the image across your retina. This impression of movement is pure hardware - the image on your retina is as still as it ever is.
I always thought that was an inner ear-related phenomenon. I don’t see the world spin, I feel it spin. Maybe I find it hard to pay proper attention when I’m nauseous!
Sure, but to what degree? As I’m typing now, I am visually aware of a whole bunch of things. But what is actually on my retinas are two slightly different images, each with a small area in the centre in focus and the rest rather blurred, and a little blind spot in each one. I’m not aware of the blind spots, I’m not even aware that most of my visual field is out of focus at any one time. So what I’m aware of is an internal construct, that is obvious. But what is it’s “refresh rate”, and how does all that hardware prioritise what gets refreshed and what doesn’t? Are stationary things in the corner of my eye like a dark background in an mpeg - the brain hardware doesn’t bother to update it as often as the stuff in the centre of my visual field? As FinnAgain asked, what is actually happening with “change blindness”? Something has changed in your visual field, but somewhere the hardware has decided it isn’t important enough to bring it to your concious attention.
The ghastly Beadle (irritating host of a show called Beadle’s About, a sort of Candid Camera that you watch in the hope that some day, someone will snap and insert his microphone into him) used the classic change blindness experiment on people in the street. While people were being interviewed, a truck was being unloaded with guys carrying large screens to intermittently shield the interviewer from view. During the shielding, the interviewer was repeatly swapped with her identical twin, but wearing a succession of radically different outfits. The victims didn’t notice. What was the brain hardware of the victim doing? If you’d thrown a ball at them during the interview, would they have ducked?
However, oftentimes there is no evidence for the memory being present but not accessible. However however, a rather large problem is - if we propose distinct encoding, storage and retrieval systems in the brain, then how do we know whether a given memory ‘loss’ is in fact a loss of the ability to retrieve the memory. In the Prosopagnosia case, you note that there’s some indirect evidence that the memories may still exist. Yet, even if there’s no such evidence that the memories still exist, it’s also very difficult to distinguish between memory loss and complete retrieval loss.
First, AFAIK no-one proposes that LTM and STM are the same, nor coded in the same way or in the same place. Even prior to the ‘hard’ neuropsych, basical experimental psych has suggested clear distinctions between these memory systems.
Second, you are quite correct that producing some defecit via brain damage does not necessarily mean that the damaged region was where the skill (or whatever) was located. However, regarding memory, with differential loss of different types of memories, we do at least know that either storage or recovery is modulated by different brain regions for some different types of memory.
TBH, I didn’t really see why you were harping on the holography business in the light of your OP, and I also have no particular desire to get into a protracted discussion of memory.
Ha! It’s not my model.
In any case, I don’t think I have much to contribute to the grandiose sweep of the above question. I’ll stick to commenting on any perceptual stuff that gets thrown in the mix. Mind you, we now seem to be doing attention … this is turning into a sightseer’s tour of experimental psych…
Re-read my cite. People have galvanic responses to faces, even if they consciously don’t remember them. What mechanism, exactly, do you propose other than memory?
Pardon me ,“whatever model you are championing in this thread.”
I’d really apprecaite it if you would participate in the thread as per my OP rather than nitpick bits you find exception to. Or at least, comment on the question I put forward. If you would like to start another thread to discuss whatever else you’re interested in, I’ll be happy to post there.
This thread is about where to go from here, and I’d appreciate if you’d take up a position on that issue, pro or con. Do you feel that we can get language in greater accord with Reality, and if so, are there any benefits? Are there other ways we can be more accurate in our perception? Etc…
The point I was making was that the presence of a GSR (or other physiological response) suggesting that apparently destroyed memories were present but not accessible, is not universal. I.e., in many cases of brain damage, there is no evidence at all that the memories exist (but are hidden from conscious awareness).
Second, if there is a GSR, well this is a very indirect measure of memory presence and there’s simply no way to know what lies behind the response. No way of knowing what is actually stored, other than something more than nothing…
I suppose I could ignore people making erroneous claims regarding how perception probably works. Such errors have appeared several times in this thread, such as Arwin’s garbling of some of the basics of visual perception - in the guise of clearing up confusions, no less! However, if discussion of the OP requires accurate knowledge of perceptual systems, then … well, there’s the point of ‘nitpicking’, you see.
If discussion of the OP doesn’t require accurate knowledge of human perception, then why is most of this thread a shopping list of perceptual phenomena? Hell, like I said above, we’ve now moved on to attention and the brain’s correction for eye movements. I don’t really see what these have to do with the OP, and AFAICT, no-one has really tried to say what focal attention has to do with producing a language that best accords with ‘Reality’.
I would need something more concrete to go on before I would comment - like first: How do we know what ‘Reality’ is, and how do we know that current language does not fully or optimally express Reality? Where are the shortcomings? I don’t see how attentional phenomena are indicative of a language far from Reality. What, exactly, is the relevance of attentional phenomena in the light of the OP?
Anyway, if you’d just like this thread to be you and Arwin patting each other on the back, then let me know and I’ll leave you to say whatever you like about absoluetly anything perceptual - accuracy be damned!
I’m not quite sure why you’re focused on language. That’s only one of the areas within the scope of the OP.
What is your stance on making reality be in greater accord with Reality? Will you please take a position on this issue? Is it possible, is it not? If it’s possible, is it desirable? If it’s desirable, how do we do it? Etc… If your argument is that we can’t know what Reality is, then how do you explain quantum physics, etc… which tells us what Reality is?
I know, one of my guest profs was talking about how Texas German is dying. It makes the study of linguistics less rich as well. It’s like trying to create a theory of trees if you’ve only got pine trees to study.
I’m not sure how to deal with this effect…
I think Word is right. Because I’m a native American, but I’m not a Native American.
Hmmmmm. Can you elaborate on this? I don’t see it leading towards culture, but I may just not be grokking.
Can you expand on this please? I like where you’re going, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
This is sad and a bad thing for linguistics research… but I don’t understand how it applies. Can you elaborate?
Can we talk then perhaps about unifying languages instead of one language? That is, giving everybody a consciousness of abstracting regardless of what the lingua franca is?
From what I understand, that’s to prevent change. I think it would be possibly to make all langues more accurate while encouraging change.
Agreed.
English is, I think, already the lingua franca.
I’d agree with the spirit of this quote.
Hrm. If we change the thought-patterns of the majority of society via education, would that do the trick?
Agreed. We too often lose sight of the liminal in our focus on details we consider important.
I don’t agree. The map is never the territory simply because it can’t contain all the information. A map of your town would have to include the entire town to be fully accurate. I can’t see any map ever reaching this accuracy, as they’re second order affairs, reality not Reality.
But I may be proven wrong.
Can you flesh this out for me please? Again I’m curious but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
See, this is an axiom which I have so I’m curious on what basis you challenge it. How would precision and accuracy not increase mutual comprehension?
From a Joycean point of view, I’d agree. But couldn’t this also be built into a meta-understanding of language, which is itself subject to greater precision and accuracy?
Okay, let’s say then that this change would be accomplished through certain linguistic, perceptual, and ideological understandings. Would this work?
Yep, and I literally said ‘more complex’, but not different. I was just adding factors.
Yup.
I just tested it again, while spinning look in a certain direction and try not to move your eyes along with any passing objects. Then stop and keep looking at a fixed point. You’ll notice some interesting things happening to the (visual) world, that also vary to how you tilt your head.
Hey, I’m no expert - in the link I posted on eyes I read that the center of the retina is better at detecting colors, and the outside of the retina is better at detecting movement. Also the light detecting cones are more to the outside of the retina. One interesting aspect of looking at eyes like this is by comparing them to eyes of other animals.
Well for instance, it could be that because of the way the rods and cones in the retina work, that in what happens directly in front of you you’re more sensitive to changes in color than changes in light, and vice versa. In terms of changes in color, you can extrapolate movevement from that, but perhaps slower, and perhaps it is a lot more sensitive to changes in color so that other movement isn’t detected as much.
That means that if you’re talking to someone, you’re looking at that persons face most of the time, and depending on the distance changes in color of the dress would fall on the outside of the retina which isn’t so sensitive to color. You’d have to redo the experiment by changing something about the light or movement (different wind, perhaps, or lighting, or changing a black dress to a white one perhaps, or to a dress that has moving parts), to determine about how much that would influence it. Focus of attention is certainly something some people have stronger than others.
Or the other stimuli overrule the hardware. I think I’ve read somewhere that the brain processes about 1.000.000 signals per second and that 800.000 of those are from visual input, and the other 200.000 are for hearing, feeling, etc. But if you close your eyes or turn blind, this can change, your hearing improves as your brain processes more data from it.
I’d suggest that it matters from which direction the ball is coming. I’ve noticed mostly as a kid, again seeming to confirm the relative sensitivity to movement of different areas of the retina, that if I throw something straight at someone, directly into their face, they’ll see it coming a lot slower and sometimes just get it right in the face.
For what it’s worth, I agree on the holographic model not being the most plausible one, and with the research you cited. Memories are definitely too ‘local’ for this. Also, there is medical research that not only can you remove certain abilities or memories or memory retrieval, but some of these memories or (motor) skills can be relearned in other parts of the brain. It seems that the brain has certain preferences in terms of which part stores which ability and which memory, but is also flexible in this to some degree.
I’m less dedicated to **FinnAgain’s ** OP than FinnAgain. I would also like to point out, and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, that you’ve just encountered a certain way in which FinnAgain’s sometimes concedes a point, but haven’t recognised it as such yet.
That was uncalled for, but I reckon it comes from you being miffed at the way FinnAgain seems to dismiss your point, which I think was right, as irrelevant. I personally don’t think it’s irrelevant at all.
I do think that his final OP question is very relevant, but for it to work we need to have some of the basics clear, and it does matter whether memory is local or holographic - it could still be somewhat combinatory of course, but I think that the complex structure of memory works in such a way that many information can be reconstructed from other memories, and actually there is ample evidence that it continuously is (which is why our memory can get away with being so inexact in the first place, but which is also why witnesses are so often unreliable).
But I stand by my previous partial answer to the OP’s final question. I think we could at the very least greatly improve the way we learn things in school, by paying closer attention to how the brain works.
OK, just a few random observations as I start drifting away from the objective science:
We can only perceive the world through the mirror of our own perceptions.
As such, we do not know if it is even possible to perceive or understand Reality. It may be that we simply cannot ever truly understand the workings of the universe. I also suspect that we’d not even know if / when we truly did understand ‘Reality’ - again, we’re a part of the system we’re trying to understand.
Quantum physics et al., is a model of how the world works. It is not Reality, and it is not even a perfect model of what we understand Reality to be. It works, but then again so did any number of previous theories. Certainly we seem to produce better descriptions / models of how the world works, but this does not necessarily mean we’re inexorably approaching Reality.
So, for me it’s not possible to say if we can get in ‘closer accord with Reality’, because we can never know what Reality is. However, in practical terms, I believe we could use language in a way that better represents the current SoTA in science. But there are problems here - in this thread Arwin gave some objectively incorrect descriptions of visual perception. However, although incorrect, these might work better than the correct descriptions, at least for certain recipients of the info. In other words, pursuing the absolute SoTA in correct language is not practical and could, I think, hinder understanding. Indeed, in this very thread we have a few people with at least reasonable knowledge of perceptual systems - and we cannot even agree on the language or what the Reality is in this well-researched area.
Boldface: Thank you very much for your contribution to this thread. I apologize if any of the Pit snark carried over or if I interpreted your words in a harsher light than they were intented. I understand that you think the scope of this thread is grandiose, but I’m an educator. It’s my job to think about changing society via education. I am looking for some good debate on this issue, and I’m glad you’re in the thread.
Now, I’m in Vermont on spring break, so I’ll be posting rather infrequently for the next few days. But I’ll be reading and do my best to keep up.
OK, I don’t do the “dueling verses” version of posting all that well.
I am just gonna review the stuff I remember you asking me to expand on.
Iterative repetition of description as a means of manipulating environment:
Some call this the “power of positive thinking” which is a misnomer. It doesn’t have to be positive at all. Negative thinking is even more powerful. But the aspect that I was discussing was that description of behavior is creative. It puts the behavior into the memory of the listener with properties very similar to memories of actual behavior. (Remember that hamburger?) Doing it repeatedly makes those memories more accessible, in the same way that practicing a task makes it easier. When the normal antecedent situation occurs, the mind requires less effort to engage in the described behavior than to do something else. When you are replacing a previously practiced behavior, that takes more time, and more repetitions than the base line frequency, but the description alone can (and usually will, unless consciously resisted) alter someone’s behavior.
Map’s and territories: For any real thing, the map can never be the territory. This is axiomatic. But there are many thing that are not real, yet are a part of every human experience. When you imagine a completely new thing, then the map is indeed the territory. Often the turn off from the highway of ordinary thinking, onto the road less traveled is an imprecision of language, either someone else’s, or your own. It creates a word path where no world experience exists. (Those crumbs I mentioned left behind by someone traveling in the undiscovered country.) Most of these things, like most changes in our genes, or our behavior are not useful, in and of themselves. But the capacity for it is quite literally the stuff that dreams are made of. Before I spend much time trying to unify perception and language, I want to be sure that I don’t cut down the signposts that lead to places not yet seen.
Why the deaths of other languages is relevant: Unifying perceptions by unifying linguistic habits differs from eliminating other languages mostly in method, rather than result. Language already has a powerful tendency to absorb, and recycle less used elements of other languages. The averaging out of American usage is an irresistible consequence of mass communication. As that expands into the entire world, a single language is almost inevitable, although it happens gradualy. It no longer takes genocide to eliminate linguistically unique elements of a culture. Television and the Internet will do it just fine. The myths and personages of the Chesapeake culture might not be destroyed, but they won’t get accessed much, and outside of a few intellectual specialists, no one who lives on Occoquan creek will know who the heck Occoquan was.
The myth of “brother thunder” is very close to extinct. Although a dozen other cultures have such personifications, that one is pretty much gone, and will be gone entirely in another generation. I can’t save it, because I don’t have the cultural background, or language to keep it alive. To me it is just a quaint tale of a Paleolithic tribal heritage that happened to exist in the spot where my computer now sits. The native speakers of that language can’t save it, because if any still live, their children don’t speak that language. Their grandchildren haven’t ever heard it. Yet it created a wise saying, which translates into English as “Love is as secret as thunder.”
Now, the same tools, the Internet, and Television can also save those things. But it takes diversifying what is on them, not trying to unify them. I don’t think you intend to make it all vanilla, but I fear that making all language more precise will eliminate much that is imprecise, but still very valuable. Eric Hoffer once said, “When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.” That tendency doesn’t need to be reinforced. Precision inherently means lack of variation. One cannot have fifteen non-identical precise meanings for a word. But folks do use ordinary words that way. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But only sometimes.
Very intersting, so how do we use this data to approach a more general/universal theory of perception? These things fascinate me, but I do believe there’s still some argument over the exact mechanisms, and the exact implications. I’d like to reserve my guesses until I hear a bit more from y’all.
I’d not heard that, I’ll see if I can’t read up a bit on it. Dawkins is great.
I will do my best to find it somewhere.
Very intersting… what applications might we postule this would have in the world? Does this effect truly alter the construction of reality, or is it merely a quirk of perception?
(I think it has implications, but again I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts.)
