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.