I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:56 pm

.


I think you are correct in your interpretation of this exercise.


That would be a correct interpretation for you.


I appreciate your participating upon this thread.


I hope you enjoyed this example.



.

duszek
Posts: 2263
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by duszek » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:03 pm

Yes, I enjoyed the exercise.

But I did it in the first place because I could not bear any longer a rooster picking on a friendly bear, if you see what I mean. We women always need peace and harmony. :D

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11904
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:32 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.I don't to appear that I am talking down to you or dismissing your input but I respectfully request that you re-read ALL of my posts upon this thread. I honestly don't think that I can make this exercise any clearer...I know you look up to me and I get the fact that you are frustrated. Believe me, that comes across. I don't know that I can walk you through this. Each of us are philosophers in direct relation to our capacities. Our individual capacities. I'm sorry and I am not dismissing you as a student. It's just that some of the questions you ask of me are not mine to answer. Do you understand? You have to think for yourself at times. I cannot give you all the answers. You cannot be given all the answers from a book or a direct teacher. Your comments and questions are appreciated and they are useful. Thank you. And I wish you all the well..
:lol: You think I didn't read your words upon this thread? Its why I asked the questions that you avoid like the plague, mainly I suspect to them being philosophical. Are you taller than six foot one? As thats the only way I'll be looking-up to you. You think you have made some philosophical point? Pray tell what it is other than this 'left/right' 'brain' metaphor that you've adopted as your philosophy of mind which I've pointed-out to you is now not supported by the same experiments that raised the idea in the first place, nor that in your other posts you've claimed that the visual is exclusively in one of the 'parts' but that now you claim differently? LMAO that you claim yourself as a teacher not rejecting me as a student but then claim that a teacher cannot supply an answer, or even a passable answer, to the 'exercise' they set. I seriously doubt you have the philosophical ability to think about the usefulness of my replies, as you consistently prove by not answering any question but content yourself in your delusion that what you are doing is philosophical. And if it is could you please say why you think it is when you post your 'thought's, you know what "would be a correct interpretation for you."?

duszek
Posts: 2263
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by duszek » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:43 pm

A philosophical point could be that people looking at the same thing may see different things at the same time.
Descartes would deduce from this: do not trust senses if they have deceived you even once.

Experiments with the left and right hemisphere provide a basis to the philosophy of mind.

You as an NLP expert, Rooster, could provide some NLP explanation perhaps.
Can we program ourselves neurologically in order to see a blue ring ?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11904
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:42 am

duszek wrote:A philosophical point could be that people looking at the same thing may see different things at the same time.
Descartes would deduce from this: do not trust senses if they have deceived you even once.

Experiments with the left and right hemisphere provide a basis to the philosophy of mind.
I appreciate your intention duszek but in my opinion such things provide little basis to a philosophy of mind, in a philosophical sense that is, as we're still discussing what the term 'mind' refers to. Now psychologically or neurophysiologically they are of interest but this 'left/right' 'brain' metaphor of mind is of little use to the philosopher I think as there is no such phenomena apparent in mind. Bill thinks this illusion is related to this metaphor because he has some vested interest in the idea, what I have no idea about, but he is a stranger to critical thinking about his own thoughts as he contradicts his own ideas, i.e. he has previously posted that visual imagery occurs in one of his 'two brains' but now proposes that a visual illusion is due to a 'movement' between the two brains, thereby contradicting his himself. On top of that he blithely ignores that the experiments by the neurobiologists that first proposed such things have been shown to be false by later neuroscientists! I don't doubt that there is lateralization of the 'brain' nor that it will and is of interest to neurobiology but the reality is that we are nowhere near explaining the relationship between 'brain' functions and 'mind' but such as Bill are blind to such points as they have some sort of metaphysic that supports or 'explains' some other need in their lives.

As you have pointed out both Descartes and Hume have cast doubt on our senses but is this a big surprise!? I think not as philosophically we'd not have the words "illusion" nor "mirage" nor "hallucination", etc, if we didn't know this already.
You as an NLP expert, Rooster, could provide some NLP explanation perhaps.
Can we program ourselves neurologically in order to see a blue ring ?
:lol: No "expert" me, my school of NLP(New Code NLP) has two levels Practitioner and Master Practitioner and I am the lowly former.

If I was to think about this illusion it'd be about how rods and cones work in the eye and how they relate to foveal and peripheral vision or attention. As such there is little colour perception in peripheral vision but much in foveal vision and given this image makes you focus intently with the foveal vision on the red dot its not much surprise to me that the vague blue 'circle' appears to disappear as its in your peripheral vision. It might be possible to train this effect out but I have a doubt about that.

Heres one to think about, in twilight we have effectively have no colour vision as we use the rods not the cones in dim-light, ntoice that the more you try to focus in dim-light the harder it is to see. :)

I think this stuff also applies to Bills latest excitable post but in this instance we also have a sense of 'motion', i.e. appearing and disappearing images, now peripheral vision is very good at noticing motion so it will notice change but not so good at colour, but light is made of colours, so the 'brain' or 'eye' will attempt to assign a colour to the motion, hence the odd changing of colours in the illusion.

If I was to bother to explore the phenomenon further I look to see what happens when you change the colours? What happens when its just black? Does shape affect it? Does it work with the colour-blind, etc, etc, but since I think it has more to do with physiology and psychology rather than philosophy I'll leave it to the sciences to come-up with the explanations, hence my rods and cones and foveal and peripheral vision explanation.

Hope this makes sense.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:14 am

.


Um...yeah. You would be looking up at me.




.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11904
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:16 am

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.Um...yeah. You would be looking up at me..
Pray tell?

Now I might be admiring duszek.
p.s.
Um ... you know you're writing the parts of your thoughts where you're having trouble processing? Now this might be necessary in speech but in writing it pays to read what you write.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:41 am

.




OK. You would continue to look up to me.



.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11904
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:46 am

The "would" would be dependant upon whether I did in the first place. Since I didn't it doesn't apply nor continue.

duszek
Posts: 2263
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by duszek » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:55 am

I calculated the size of Rooster: 6 foot x 30,48 centimeters = 182,88 centimeters. And it was more than 6 foot, so maybe 185.
I would look up at Rooster but only physically and only if we were both standing on the same level.

Bill could be bigger. How many foot or centimeters are you Bill ?

Happy New Year !

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:24 pm

.


6' 1 1/2"



Happy Kwanzza & Holy Days to you!



.

duszek
Posts: 2263
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by duszek » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:06 pm

A difference of half a centimeter does not make one look up or down to the other.

Napoleon Bonaparte was small and many important men looked humbly down to him to get their orders.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:38 pm

.





..................................................
Image






I meant philosophically. Physically I believe the difference would be about 1 1/2".







.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: I want you to focus upon this red ball...

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:46 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:
Impenitent wrote: ok, I'll say it...

"philosophy" of a boob...

-Imp
.
Remember...we are philosophers here.



We're studying philosophy.


Boobs - no.
I think he was calling you a boob.

What I got from this was the blue circle turned into a red ball.
If you focus on the red ball then outside things around you will turn into a red ball too.
In short, life becomes whatever you're focused on. If it's color is 127 degrees in the opposite direction.
But if the color is halfway opposite, and not fully opposite, then it becomes the opposite of itself, but still at the end it is no closer to whatever it is your focusing on. So the moral is opposites turn to likes, and likes turn to dislikes, but halfways just stay halfways.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests