From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:13:57 -0800 Archived: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:33:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 22:10:01 -0000 >Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic >>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:30:33 -0800 >>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic >>>From: Eleanor White <ewraven1.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:49:36 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic >>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:14:38 -0000 >>>>Subject: Re: Inter-Dimensional Or Demonic >>><snip> >>>>However, have a memory of some clinician describing how his >>>>patient saw even his breakfast table - ie. cereal packets >>>>etc - as horrible and fearful. ><snip> >>What I've read on the subject of blind-from-birth having their >>sight restored is that few ever feel totally comfortable with >>the images, finding them confusing and difficult to interpret. ><snip> >>Exactly what this has to do with UFOs and aliens I'm not sure. >>Novel images and objects can certainly confuse us, but normal >>sighted people usually resort to metaphor to try to bridge the >>gap between the known and unknown. Therefore, the UFO/creature >>looked like, moved like, acted like, etc. ><snip> >>What exactly is "demonic" anyway? >We've come full circle: >First, I don't think there's a single 'normal sighted person' on >this Earth who would be reliable when trying to describe >something which was truly alien to his/her learned perceptions. >As joint editors C.P. Snow (British Ministry of Technology), >Prof. Henry Margenau (Yale University), Prof. Ren=E9 Dubois (The >Rockefeller University) all agreed: "An examination of most of >the data of vision would reveal no examples of what could be >accurately called 'correct' perception." (in 'Light and >Vision'). And yet here the human race is after millions of years still going strong. Obviously _most_ of our perceptions have been right on the money, or we wouldn't still be here: we correctly perceive the leopard leaping out of the tree, the game we are hunting down, the good plants from the bad plants, etc., etc., ad infinitum. I do grow weary of these nonsensical statements that literally no perception is ever correct. Correct in what sense Ray? Are you constantly misidentifying family members, eating the wrong food, dashing out into traffic, etc., etc., because none of your visual perceptions are ever right? >Second, at the start of this thread. I wrote: "been reviewing >some presentations with agendas. They all use the "para" >conclusions of folk like Mack and Hopkins, Hynek and Vallee, to >steer their readers/viewers to believe that unexplained >phenomena are either 'inter-dimensional' or 'demonic'" - and >then went on to hypothesize that we can only 'see' what's >already in our minds (from biological experiment and examples of >different paranormal experiences being determined by existing >folk-mythologies). Only party true and again greatly overstated. Maybe we don't know exactly what something totally novel is, but we can certainly describe it in detail, draw it, etc. You are confusing basic perceptual characteristics (color, form, depth, luminosity, etc.) from identification and knowledge of what the thing is or can do, which is something else again, and much more dependent on actual experience. If pushed for actual identification, then maybe somebody will fall back on the familiar to compare it with. Thus an airplane flying over the Amazonian jungle to natives who had never seen one might be called a giant bird. But if you ask for details, they can also correctly describe the details that don't match with a typical bird: it didn't flap its wings, it was shaped differently from a bird, it was much bigger, it made a lot of noise, it was silvery, etc. Again, not being able to correctly ID something because of no background experience is NOT the same as being able to describe it's characteristics. >In other words, if an alien 'plasma-being' were to materialize, >an MIT prof would 'see' an artifact - a saucer, or a robot etc; >a mid-European peasant would 'see' something from fairy tales - >a walking house or some such; while an Amazonian villager would >'see' a zoomorphic Forest God - a giant magical animal. But if you ask all three to describe the details, you will probably get very similar descriptions. >Don't forget: light is stopped by the back of the eye, so no >human brain has ever had a (true) optical view of the universe. So does a bullet hole into the brain give you a "true" optical view of the universe? And what is there "seeing" the "true" universe? A magical homunculus with its own eyes, that figures out the correct perception - how exactly? http://tinyurl.com/6wc4wvd Exactly what is the "true" optical universe anyway? There really is no "sound" when a tree falls in the forest unless some animal is there with ears and a nervous system to interpret the disturbance of air molecules made by the tree crashing down. Likewise objects, colors, etc. have no optical existence outside of some sort of visual perceptual system. Any vision, whether us or by a computer, is necessarily an interpretation of a visual image through data processing. A photograph may more faithfully record the details of an image and "remember" them better, but a photo does not "see", i.e. it doesn't interpret. It is just storing patterns of photons and can't tell you anything about what is in the image. Neither does the camera, or a TV camera or an iPhone. "Seeing" only happens when active data processing of the image takes place. Can "mistakes" be made? Sure, but actually our perceptual systems generally quite stable and accurate. Any inaccuracies tend to be small and insignificant, thus visual illusions, which even at the time we usually are aware are illusions because they conflict with other analyzed attributes that ARE accurate. Finally Ray, FYI the retina IS part of the brain, an outcropping of neural tissue facing outward that arises early in development. Unless there is some defect, it has a one-to-one topographic mapping of the image formed on it, which is transmitted to the brain and reflected in the one-to-one mapping there, determined through electrophysiological recordings. There may be "distortions" of the mapping depending on area, thus the central few degrees of vision getting the lion's share of brain tissue, but this reflects more detailed data processing of the image there, with less being devoted to the periphery (we can pack only so much brain tissue into our skulls). There are further remappings, not all of them strictly topographic, but this reflects analyzing specific attributes of the scene, such as color, motion, faces, etc. If have to do the same sort remappings in computer vision to make sense of the scene. For animals, "seeing" the "true" optical universe is parsing the image into analyzable attributes that help the animal stay alive and reproduce. That is ultimately what "seeing" is, not some esoteric "true" visual universe that somehow exists outside of the existence of some sort of "mind" to interpret it. David Rudiak 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