On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact 
> of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects 
> were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex 
> two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal 
> red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color 
> and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. 
> What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as 
> their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the 
> gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the 
> sequence in which they were being tested on.
>
> What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man 
> in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant 
> (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they 
> saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something 
> that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our 
> perception.
>
> From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very 
> efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, 
> unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning 
> the raw film into the finished movie.
>

I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from 
recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is 
actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. 
What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing 
gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of 
experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects 
sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the 
brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high 
fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes.

Craig

 
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> *Subject:* Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are 
> aware of it
>
>  
>
>
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
>
> We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
> the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
> which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
> Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
> Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
> closer to answering this question.
>
> Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual 
> illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images 
> invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens 
> when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then 
> decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth 
> between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for 
> our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our 
> consciousness.
>
> Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture 
> to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
> Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
> a 'motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/> area' that specifically 
> processes visual motion <http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/>. 
> The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
> have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
> amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.
>
> So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
> motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
> image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
> effect.
>
> This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
> conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
> brain<http://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/>. 
> Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
> disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
> rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
> resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
> Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and 
> noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
> question of how this neural stability is achieved.
>
>
> Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense 
> *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*
>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to