From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:12:36 +0100 Archived: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:06:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Cathy Reason <Cathym.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:47:44 +0100 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:34:55 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>>So it's a solid premise because it has a lot backing it up, and >>>the evidence which backs it up must be ok because it's based on >>>a solid premise. This is completely circular reasoning. >>Nice try, Cathy. No. The premise is backed up by evidence >>obtained from empirical research conducted in scientific fields >>outside psychology. There is nothing circular there. <snip> >We have models for understanding how the brain identifies >targets from fields of heterogeneous distractors (sometimes >known as "visual clutter"). These models are built up of local >processing algorithms and it's possible to fool them by >presenting targets in a highly cluttered environment (one >involving a lot of heterogeneous distractors) or by cueing >attention to look in the wrong place, as you have described >here. But as I mentioned in a previous post, these errors are >highly specific to the circumstances that create them. There is >no need to imagine some generic cognitive homunculus creating >"models of reality" and thus no reason to regard these sorts of >errors as systemic. And systemic error is surely what >unreliability entails. Hi Cathy From the sidelines, I'm reminded of Kuhn's use of the Brunner & Postman card-viewing experiment to illustrate a sort of anomaly- blindness which he thought characteristic of "normal science" within the paradigm. I dare say this is passe in today's circles, and I'm not sure if he intended it to be more than an analogy; but I confess that it has always struck me as tempting to generalise it from the particular perceptual case not merely to epochs of human culture but to the human condition itself. If there are aspects of "the world" (meaning the entirety of _potential_ human experience) to which we have not (yet) been exposed (so as to acquire evolutionarily-adapted expectations in relation to them), what happens if and when we do encounter them? Could it be said that human expectation of a fundamentally surprise-free future (of "normal" experience in Kuhnian terms) amounts to a "systemic error" in relation to experience that exists beyond the horizon of what we could call the meta- paradigm of human being? And if so, what happens to us when we experience those radically ambiguous "red Ace of Spades" type events? Martin Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp