On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/24 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 24 Oct 2012, at 14:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Comments?
If verified it might confirms Helmholtz intuition that "perception"
is "unconscious anticipation".
It would be the Dt of the Bp & Dt. It is natural with the finding
that when we "perceive objects" a big deal of information does not
come from the data but from the brains (memories, constructions, gap
fillings, ...)
I struggle with the psicho-slang to ascertain what they really said.
From some comentaires:
The title and intro leave out the fact that a likely cause -- cited
by the highest-quality study -- is the experimental methods. I am
curious if any of the experiments attempted to automate both
stimulus presentation and data analysis to avoid experimenter effects.
It may be a variation of the case of subtle perception of the
experimenter intentions by the subjects under test.
I remember the case of a Horse that apparently know how to multiply
numbers. The horse stopped khocking on the floor when the
experimenter moved in a certain way when the number of knocks
reached the correct result. The experimenter did not realized that
he was sending the signal "enough" to the horse.
This may be a more sophisticated case of the same phenomenon. In
this case the signal could be "be prepared because we are going to
do this or that". Neiter the experimeinte nor the subject of the
experiment have to be conscious of that signal. There are a largue
number of bad psychological experiments with these flaws. One of the
last ones, the subject of these experiment was myself with my
otolaryngologist who, to test my audition performance, advised me
when I supposedly must hear a weak sound instead of shut up and wait.
Just to be clear, neither Helmholtz, nor me, were saying that the
brain anticipates by using some kind of magic, but just by using
memories. There other experimental setup which confirms this view.
Concerning the present experience, I am not convinced, as far as I
understand it, that it shows any more than the usual confirmation that
perception is, in great part, a form of anticipation. It is a very
efficient strategy, as the sense got a lot of data, and it is normal
to analyze them starting from the theories we already have (that is
the neural circuits). That is why we can be hallucinated and deluded
very easily, or why we can see picture and sense in random structure,
etc. Otherwise I agree with your point.
Bruno
Some comment in your links above seems to confirm this analysis, but
I have not really the time to dig deeper.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
