The Grand Illusion

[vaneramos]

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/05-06/nov12.html#1

This week Quirks and Quarks discussed the nature of consciousness. Jay Ingram discussed his latest book, Theatre of the Mind.

Scientists lack an adequate explanation for consciousness. What we think we perceive is quite different from the data our senses actually gather. This is particularly evident with vision. For example, look at these two alternating photographs with grey space between them, and try to tell what's changing. It takes most people a few minutes.

http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/kayakflick.gif

What we experience as a rich perceptual field does not really exist. Susan Blackmore calls this the Grand Illusion.

She has also discounted her former interest in parapsychology in a statement reminiscent of conclusions about my own mystical experiences.

"Admitting you are wrong is always hard, even though it's a skill every scientist needs to learn," she says.

The stream of consciousness doesn't exist either. As soon as you try to catch yourself unconscious, your brain creates a story from subliminal data. It's like trying to catch the refrigerator light off.

I had to stop surfing and get out my knitting to listen to Ingram's segment. We can carry on certain automatic skills while attention is diverted, but consciousness is far more selective than we realize.

Comments

[that-dang-otter.livejournal.com]

She's a really interesting person. I find myself returning to her articles again and again.

Her disavowal of the paranormal also touches me, because she is so earnest and honest. But I think that what could be salvaged from all that research is something more interesting than the paranormal itself - understanding why people believe anything, and the mechanisms that create that belief. It's easy to understand why people believe things that are true, less easy when those things are shown (with difficulty, but conclusively) to be false.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

There's a classic essay which argues that religion is a beneficial delusion, that faith in something beyond reality makes people healthier and happier. I used to give that argument some credence, but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that unreasonable beliefs are attended by dangerous blind spots. I don't see any alternative to treating religion with tolerance. But the question you raise (why people believe in things that are shown conclusively to be false) is certainly relevant.

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

What's strange is that I noticed the difference right away. I don't think this means anything other than the fact that my mind was attuned to notice a change.

It's this idea that perception and consciousness are constructs that makes me distrust the statements of absolute truth of any sort, perceptual or no. I'm not so much a moral relativist as I am a reality relativist; whatever reality exists, we are only capable of individual bits and snatches of gathering it, and the synthesis of these parts into a whole demands a constructivist activity of the mind which is different for each person.

It's part of what makes me able to say, with regularity, that I can listen to the constructs of people with wildly different ideas and nod, and smile, and say, "that could be true."

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

It took me several minutes to see the change, even though I was looking for it. I only found it by studying small segments of the field closely for a few seconds at a time. Prior to finding it, I had a strange episode, lasting perhaps 10 seconds, when I could see something changing "out of the corner of my eye," but couldn't identify what or where it was.

I believe there is an absolute truth out there, although I doubt it would serve as a guide for anything as subjective as moral judgment. I also doubt our ability to perceive and understand it thoroughly, ever. That's what makes the exploration so compelling.

[kwintt.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, thanks for the link to that.
I noticed the difference after about 4 screen refreshes, but I think maybe that's because I'm in video and used to looking around the 'frame' for anomalies. Minutes? gee ...

Interesting her departure from her exploration of psi. Perhaps she would have had a different opinion if she had looked at good double-blind experiments instead of investigating poseurs, which are a dime a dozen. We were frankly intrigued with some of the papers we saw coming out of the Parapsychology Association. Serious scientists were designing experiments and doing very rigorous analysis. And not a psychic in sight.

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

It took me some time, maybe a minute. I had to study small segments of the frame closely for a few seconds at a time. Prior to finding it, I had a strange experience lasting perhaps ten seconds when I could see something changing "out of the corner of my eye," but couldn't tell what or where until I looked directly at it.

I'll keep my eye out for some of those experiments. It's a fascinating topic.