The false gap between reality and perception.

[Bucky Ball]

(04-10-2012 11:33 AM)I and I Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 11:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're a liar then. Knowing what an optical illusion is doesn't change anything at it's effect. Just like knowing what a hallucination is doesn't stop them from appearing when, for example, using certain drugs.

I know that I am perceiving something that isn't happening, that is the reality of my experience when I looked at that picture and yes my knowledge of the difference between what is or isn't an illusion changes the reality of our experience. If someone knows that they are remembering a bear attack, the reality of this memory and reflection on past events doesn't have the same affect of the actual event.
Are you trying to say the circles were spinning?

The fact is, in time, the bear attacked, and you have scratches to prove that something, apart from what goes on in your brain, actually did happen.
This IS objective reality. It must be nice to think, like all the woo woo believers out there, that you will not actually die, and that that too, is just perception.

[Vosur]

(04-10-2012 11:53 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  How does one know that their perception does not conform with reality if there is no other being to confirm their belief?

It seems like you don't know too much about computers. Based on the fact that the image is a png (not an apng) file, you can tell that it doesn't contain any form of animation. But if you're looking at it, you can clearly see it moving. If that's not enough evidence to convince you, try printing out one of these illusion images - I think the two of us can agree that printed paper isn't animated.

That's how you can know the difference between perception and objective reality in this example.

[Logica Humano]

I wasn't really tricked by any until the last one, Vosur. Does that mean I is special!?

[Vosur]

(04-10-2012 01:45 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I wasn't really tricked by any until the last one, Vosur. Does that mean I is special!?

Define "tricked".

[Logica Humano]

(04-10-2012 01:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 01:45 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I wasn't really tricked by any until the last one, Vosur. Does that mean I is special!?

Define "tricked".

I didn't see any of the illusions until the last one, where the green circles looked like they were turning on the purple background, and the first spinning circles got me on the second visit.

[Vosur]

(04-10-2012 01:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I didn't see any of the illusions until the last one, where the green circles looked like they were turning on the purple background, and the first spinning circles got me on the second visit.

That probably means that your eyes are malfunctioning.

[TrainWreck]

(04-10-2012 01:38 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 11:53 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  How does one know that their perception does not conform with reality if there is no other being to confirm their belief?

It seems like you don't know too much about computers. Based on the fact that the image is a png (not an apng) file, you can tell that it doesn't contain any form of animation. But if you're looking at it, you can clearly see it moving. If that's not enough evidence to convince you, try printing out one of these illusion images - I think the two of us can agree that printed paper isn't animated.

That's how you can know the difference between perception and objective reality in this example.

You are defining the perception for the observer. All a person has to do is look at a specific circle and recognize that the circle in observation is not moving, and then test the next circle. It is not possible to see all of the circles moving at the same time.

What you are failing to understand is that we agree that the illustration has the qualities of what has been defined in our society as being an "optical illusion."

The person who is unaware of the possibility that optical illusions exist, may be subject to misinterpret the illustration.

I know it is an optical illusion, I enjoy how the illustration activates my visual senses, and my perception is not incorrect.

[Vosur]

(05-10-2012 10:37 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are defining the perception for the observer.

Care to elaborate? I'm using this definition of 'perception'.

"the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses"

(05-10-2012 10:37 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  All a person has to do is look at a specific circle and recognize that the circle in observation is not moving, and then test the next circle. It is not possible to see all of the circles moving at the same time.

That'd be a way to avoid being "tricked" in this example. Do you also have such a solution for hallucinations and the hundreds of different optical illusions out there?

(05-10-2012 10:37 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  What you are failing to understand is that we agree that the illustration has the qualities of what has been defined in our society as being an "optical illusion."

The person who is unaware of the possibility that optical illusions exist, may be subject to misinterpret the illustration.

I know it is an optical illusion, I enjoy how the illustration activates my visual senses, and my perception is not incorrect.

As I've said previously, knowing that what you are looking at is "false" doesn't change anything at the fact that you perceive it to be something it isn't with your eyes.

[BryanS]

(04-10-2012 11:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One who has such a poor grasp of grammar, and meaning, should not be humiliating themself in pubic with statements about human language.

Anyone else think we are observing a Bishadi sock puppet? Next we'll be hearing about "energy upon mass".

Or is it just that a certain kind of crazy all sounds the same?

[Bucky Ball]

(05-10-2012 08:50 PM)BryanS Wrote:  

(04-10-2012 11:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One who has such a poor grasp of grammar, and meaning, should not be humiliating themself in pubic with statements about human language.

Anyone else think we are observing a Bishadi sock puppet? Next we'll be hearing about "energy upon mass".

Or is it just that a certain kind of crazy all sounds the same?

9/25 Page 4 of the "time" thread :
RE: Time
Either this IS Bishadi, or a clone. He's on ignore, folks. I suggest the same. The China question proves there is a "screw loose".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...light=time