On 24 Oct 2012, at 19:31, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I dont believe that such genuine anticipation is possible, for a
simple reason: If for quantum or relativistic means the mind or the
brain could genuinely anticipate anything, this would be such a huge
advantage, that this hability would be inherited genetically by
everyone of us, every human plant, animal with the most accurate
precission. because it would be so critical.
The fact is the we have no such hability. the most we can do is to
simulate it with the available data, gatering as much as possible
information from the behaviour, faces etc of other human beings and
we process it unconsciously. Most of the time even we are not
conscious of how much information we gather.
I think we anticipate all the time. At every second. When we drive a
car, we anticipate the movement and correct it accordingly. There are
many picture of object lacking a crucial elements which when shown
rapidly to subject makes the subject swearing having seen the lacking
elements. When shown more slowly after, the subject is usually
astonished to see they were lacking. A part of that anticipation is
part of Hobson theory of dream, where the cerebral stem might sent to
the cortex quasi random information, and the dreams is the result of
the cortex anticipating sense from that crude information. A building
of an hypothesis/theory and its momentary admission is also a form of
anticipation. Everyone anticipate that tomorrow the sun will rise.
If you decide to open your fridge you anticipate the vague shape of
what you can see in your fridge. It is far more efficient than analyse
the data like if they were new.
I don't think there is anything controversial here. Helmholtz theory
is usually accepted as a base in pattern recognition, and basic
perception. It is rather well tested.
More provocative perhaps: I personally would not been so much
astonished that evolution itself does make variate sort of
anticipation. I would not find this utterly shocking, as genetic
algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, like brains are. It would
just means that some brain-like mechanism has already appear at the
level of the genome, but on a scale which makes it hard to be detected
for us. I am not sure at all about this, but I see nothing really
"magical" if such thing was detected.
Bruno
2012/10/24 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
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.
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.
--
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.
