>>16897011
That's to be expected since the brain is amalgamating sensory input and hallucinating some of the gaps (literally how your vision works) in order to present it to you in as sensible a way as possible.

>>16897011
and it does it for free

>>16897029
one time i started speaking to my friend and i could see his face clearly, then when he replied it wasn't his voice, and the face i saw in front of me melted away and was replaced with the real guy's face, who was a stranger, in that few seconds when i believed it was my friend i was hallucinating his face, the voice broke the illusion

>>16897045
>the real guy's face
you don't know that

>Using a technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), it is possible to stimulate the left or right brain motor centers in a subject’s brain, at the experimenter’s discretion. A properly sculpted TMS signal to the right motor center will cause a twitch of the left wrist, while a properly sculpted TMS signal to the left motor center will cause a twitch of the right wrist. Alvaro Pascual-Leone used this technique ingeniously in a simple experiment that has profound implications. He asked subjects, upon receiving a cue, to decide whether they wanted to twitch their right or their left wrist. Then they were instructed to act out their intention upon receiving an additional cue. The subjects were in a brain scanner, so the experimenter could watch their motor areas preparing the twitch. If they had decided to twitch their right wrist, their left motor area was active; if they decided to twitch their left wrist, their right motor area was active. It was possible, in this way, to predict what choice had been made before any motion occurred.
>Now comes a revealing twist. Occasionally Pascual-Leone would apply a TMS signal to contradict (and, it turns out, override) the subject’s choice. The subject’s twitch would then be the one that TMS imposed, rather than the one he or she originally chose. The remarkable thing is how the subjects explained what had happened. They did not report that some external force had possessed them. Rather, they said, “I changed my mind.”
—Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, Frank Wilczek.

>>16897011
yeah duh.

>>16897029
>hallucinating some of the gaps
exactly this is why "ghost" hunter shows only go places at night. if everything is clearly lit your brain has no problem interpreting it. make it dark and now that curtain in the corner of your eye is something spooky.

>>16897011
they haven't done DMT

Holy shit you're retarded if you needed a scientist to tell you that, most people figure that out by the time they're 12.

>>16897011
what is she using the two fingers for, is this some type of VR porn?

>>16897011
reality edits itself even without your brain

What does it mean to experience raw reality? Read Kant.

File: bwoa.gif (647.9 KB)

647.9 KB GIF

everybody is tripping all the time

>>16897033
brain is the reality janny

>>16897187
your mind cannot grasp what is infinite

>>16897011
>scientists believe your brain edits reality before you're aware of it in a way that you never experience raw reality; only a delayed, curated version of it
I don't know if any scientist actually says this, but I wouldn't be surprised. Most of them are cretins, philosophically speaking, hence such absurd nonsense.

>>16897048
>They did not report that some external force had possessed them. Rather, they said, “I changed my mind.”
Can you prove that they're wrong? What does "changed my mind" mean, soilentifically?

>>16897011

as you watched superman cartoons as a kid you might make similar visuals up in familiar environment

>>16897111

it means theyre an NPC redundant
hybridic clone of genetic atrocity

>>16897011
OP isn't gay, it is just his brain.

>>16897045
Yeah, LSD is fun sometimes.

>>16897011
>scientists believe
I should've stopped reading there.

They're not scientists, they're just fools with vain philosophy. This is more common than most people want to admit too, philosophers LARPing as scientists.

>>16897305
The author doesn't talk about the meaning, he just reports that the subjects said they had a change of heart, a change of opinion, a last minute decision

>>16897011
The human brain can process an image that the eye has seen in as little as 13 milliseconds (0.013 seconds). This rapid speed indicates that the brain can process visual information at a rate of roughly 75 frames per second. With the 750MB cell buffer, we could use a HDMI cable.

File: Moire-interference-of-retinal-mosaics-predicts-a-link-between-retinotopic-and-orientation.png (163.5 KB)

163.5 KB PNG

>>16897011
It's even a step beyond that. All of vision is a hallucination. What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes, it generates its own stream of data.

Information from the eyes "disturbs" this data stream, and what you experience as eyesight are the "negatives" from those disturbances. Your brain tries to maintain a very continuous and stable state of this "vision" stream, like a body of water that is completely still. Anything that disturbs the surfaces forms waves and ripples, and the brain's visual area is like a pond that has a very specific shape, so that the waves and ripples that form from information coming from the eyes, create patterns on the water's surface that are reliable representations of how the outside world looks.

People think that what we experience as vision are the things that cause these disturbances, that we come into contact with reality. But what we really experience as vision is the pond, that "system" in the brain itself, that is completely detached from what happens in the outside world.

This is why serotonergic psychedelic drugs create their unique brand of hallucinations because they do two things. One is that they rerout intrinsic brain activity through the visual system, so all kinds of shit that is happening in your brain disturbs this "water surface" and you experience those disturbances through your senses. The other is that normally, your brain doesn't let you see the "water surface" of the pond, only the disturbances, but serotonergic psychedelics remove this block, and just lets the "water surface" send signals as much as it pleases, so you end up seeing geometric shapes because that's what the visual area is structured like. So you're literally seeing the organization of cells in your visual area.

>>16897954
>he just reports that the subjects said they had a change of heart, a change of opinion, a last minute decision
Ok, and can you prove that their report is in any way wrong?

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35.2 KB)

35.2 KB JPG

>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes
The chatbot is broken.

>>16897994
Fascinating.

>>16897068
salvia divinorum also lets you time travel
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B8NMDmoujfo

>>16897994
Stop smoking moldy crack

>>16898043
You don't understand. Seeing has NOTHING to do with eyes. The scientific proof of this is that when I get high on drugs, I can literally see the patterns that reflect the organization of cells in my eyes.

>>16897011
>scientists

File: am I retardo.png (58.2 KB)

58.2 KB PNG

>>16897997
>>16898043
OK, can you please explain the text in pic related to me? Maybe I misunderstand? Or is the author just full of shit?

Please teach me.

>>16898059
Your text:
>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information

Your claim:
>>16897994
>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes

Once again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.

>>16898060
the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information
>but we do not see, hear, feel, or smell physical reality itself. Instead, physical reality constrains the internal and fundamentally subjective process of conscious experience.

>>16898061
See, the author of that text is a philosophical cretin, but in order to discuss this, you'd need to be able to comprehend or at least acknowledge the content of the text, which you don't, won't and can't.

>>16897011
pretty cool hey
>>16897111
you vastly overestimate the intellect and contemplative abilities of the population

>>16898068
You vastly overestimate your own intellect and contemplative abilities. What the fuck is a "raw reality"? Is this purely abstract, purely imaginary thing even in category of experience that you can talk about not experiencing it?

File: I think you would feel better if you actually read some books.png (104 KB)

104 KB PNG

>>16898062
>the author of that text is a philosophical cretin
This text right here doesn't seem to philosophical to me.

>you'd need to be able to comprehend or at least acknowledge the content of the text
Alright let's review.

>Normal perception, dreaming, and hallucinations are equivalent because even normal perception in wakefulness is fundamentally a state of hallucinations, one however that is constrained by external physical reality.
Everything you see, hear, feel, touch and smell is no different from the things you dream or the things you hallucinate. They are all one thing, everything is a hallucination. Information from the senses reduces the things you can hallucinate, and those reductions are supposed to be a reliable experience of the outside world within your own hallucination world.

>Although Kant ( 1781 ) was not the first idealist, he can be credited with first recognizing idealism as the appropriate philosophical framework for understanding the nature of the perceived world and its phenomena and, at the same time, recognizing the embeddedness of the phenomenal world in a shared physical world that lies beyond subjective experience
Idealists are philosophers who think that there is more to our experience of reality than the physical/material world. Materialists/realists believe that everything we experience and everything around us is exclusively matter. Kant was a philosopher who said that we experience reality in a unique way that is different from the material world, but that every human being experiences something that is shaped by a physical/material world that is the same for everyone.

1/2

>>16898078
>>16898059
Your text:
>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information

Your claim:
>>16897994
>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes

Once again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.

>>16898062
>>16898078
>The adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information about changes taking place in the physical world, but we do not see, hear, feel, or smell physical reality itself.
We are not just awake and living experiencing our minds as raw information, we also have minds that can adapt, interpret, react, anticipate. Being awake is not just simply about being awake, it's about manipulating the information we are experiencing. That experience is shaped/changed by information coming into our senses from the outside world, but we don't directly experience the outside world itself. We just experience our wakefulness and changes that happen to that wakefulness due to our sensory organs, but we don't experience our sensory organs themselves and we don't experience the outside world that is influencing the sensory organs.

>Instead, physical reality constrains the internal and fundamentally subjective process of conscious experience.
Being awake is like being in a dream world, that dream world is made by a brain and it kind of just does whatever it wants. Information from our senses comes into our brain, and the brain uses that information to dream really specific things. It tries to dream what the information from the senses tells it to dream, but this is only an interpretation. It still does whatever it wants, it still dreams whatever it wants. But it wants to survive, and to survive it needs to use information from the senses in a reliable way, so it tries to make sure that the dreams that you look at to decide what to do, are useful enough that you can use them to survive.

2/2

How did I do? Please tell me where I go wrong with my misinterpretations of the text.

>>16898078
>Everything you see, hear, feel, touch and smell is no different from the things you dream or the things you hallucinate. They are all one thing, everything is a hallucination.
Yes, that's something a philosophical cretin would write, because he doesn't understand the actual meaning of the words he uses. If you saw something independently from the senses (as you claim and your source denies), in a wakeful state, that would indeed be a hallucination. The word 'hallucination' exists specifically to distinguish perceptions grounded in the senses from ones that aren't and they specifically apply to a wakeful state, not to dreams.

>>16898080
>>16898059
Reminder!

Your text:
>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information

Your claim:
>>16897994
>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes

Once again, you demonstrate that there is zero value in educating 90 IQs and teaching them scientific vocabulary.

File: Untitled5.png (24.3 KB)

24.3 KB PNG

>>16898082
>the adaptive state of wakefulness depends on sensory information
>What you experience as vision is a process that exists entirely independent from the eyes

um, sweetie, those two are not mutually exclusive

>>16898084
>X depends on Y
>X exists as a process entirely independent of Y
>those two are not mutually exclusive
Mentally ill retard.

>>16898085
Ok take four people right.

>Person nr 1
Intact eyes. Intact visual area. Normal vision.

>Person nr 2
No eyes. Intact visual area. No eyesight, hallucinations in visual field are possible.

>Person nr 3
Intact eyes. No visual area. No experience of vision whatsoever.

>Person nr 4
No eyes. No visual area. No experience of vision whatsoever

Tell me, where does vision come from and where does eyesight come from?

>>16898087
>Person nr 1
>Person nr 2
... demonstrate how vision depends on the eyes.

>Person nr 3
>Person nr 4
... demonstrate how vision depends on the visual cortex.

You people are actual, unironic cretins. Where are you all coming from? I've never had to interact with people this disabled in any real-life STEM context.

>>16898096
>Person nr 2
>... demonstrate how vision depends on the eyes.
How can there be hallucinations if there is no vision coming from the eyes?

>>16898097
>there is no vision coming from the eyes
What the fuck does this even mean, you actual retard? Surreal stuff...

>>16898100
You say vision depends on the eyes, right? Ok, but people with destroyed eyesight can still experience hallucinatory images in their consciousness. Where are the images coming from, if all experience of vision comes exclusively from the eyes?

>>16897011
>Optical illusions
>Blind spot
>Saccadic masking
It's rather obvious that everything we perceive is constructed

>>16898104
>people with destroyed eyesight can still experience hallucinatory images in their consciousness
Yes, brown retard. Because vision depends on the eyes. If they lose their eyes, or even just suffer prolonged sensory deprivation, they're gonna start hallucinating because the process responsible for vision depends on - believe it or not - your visual sensory organs, so now it's disrupted and you hallucinate instead of seeing proper.

>if all experience of vision comes exclusively from the eyes
Take your anti-psychotic medication, wait for a few hours, then come back and quote the post that said "all experience of vision comes exclusively from the eyes". You "people" unironically need to be sterilized. All your relatives also. Eugenics is sorely needed.

>>16898106
>they're gonna start hallucinating
>so now it's disrupted and you hallucinate instead of seeing proper
Ok, WHERE are the hallucinations coming from? What is making them?

File: fullretard.jpg (78.6 KB)

78.6 KB JPG

Who would have thought that a bunch of people on a "science" board would be getting unironically getting filtered by the concept of something depending on multiple factors.

>>16898108
See >>16898096 then see >>16898106 again, especially the part that recommends your sterilization.

>>16898110
No, as you pointed out, I'm a retard so please spell it out for me. Please say it very explicitly. Be concrete please. Give a direct answer to the question, don't evade the question please.

If there is no eyesight, and someone is experiencing hallucinatory images in their consciousness, where do the hallucinatory images come from? What makes the hallucinatory images?

>>16898113
>say it very explicitly.
But I literally did, mentally ill retard:
>>16898096
>>Person nr 3
>>Person nr 4
>... demonstrate how vision depends on the visual cortex.

>>16898114
Ok so you explicitly say that in person nr 3 and person nr 4 vision depends on the visual cortex.

And in person nr 2 if they have no eyes, hallucinatory images come from the visual cortex. So you're saying that the mental phenomenon of seeing images comes from the visual cortex.

So in person 4 it comes from the visual cortex.
So in person 3 it comes from the visual cortex.
So in person 2 it comes from the visual cortex.
And naturally, in person 1 it also comes from the visual cortex.

The common thread between all four persons that manipulates what mental imagery they see in their consciousness seems to be the visual cortex.

However, only in one out out of these four persons, the eyes matter, right? In person 3 and 4 mental imagery is totally gone, regardless of whether the eyes are there or not. In person 2 there are hallucinations, with mental imagery persisting in the form of hallucinations. In person 1 there is normal vision.

The common thread is the visual cortex. Not the eyes.

>>16898119
Not reading your mentally ill post beyond the first sentence. See >>16898109

>>16898071
sounds like you having a stroke
hope you get that sorted gramps
:)

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB)

39 KB JPG

>sounds like you having a stroke
>hope you get that sorted gramps

Perception is the sole basis for knowing what it means for something to be at all, let alone what it means for something to be the case. If perception isn't real, nothing is real and the distinction is meaningless. Word thinkers, with their lukewarm intellects, just have this weird disease where they keep over-abstracting a concept until it becomes completely divorced from the context that spawned it. So they start to prattle about some kind of "raw reality" that is somehow more real than anything the word 'real' has ever meant. They can't actually conceive of what this hypothetical "raw reality" is like - by definition, it can't be like anything - but they can use this empty symbol to form empty phrases to deny reality and try to supplant it with a fabricated abstraction.

>>16898136
Do you know it's a perception?
If the perception comes before the knowledge, then it isn't known as a perception but it is a perception in some way more fundamental.

>>16898145
>Do you know it's a perception?
What does it mean to "know" it's a perception? It is what it is. "Perception" is what we call it to distinguish it from the first level of abstraction that is consensus reality.

>>16898159
>It is what it is.
What is it?

>>16897011
It's pretty fascinating. Sense of continuity of mind and self is the result of the brain working overtime to provide a (seemingly) seamless perceptual experience and also highly dependent on our imperfect memories.

>>16898192
>umm, sweaty? you need to explain it in terms of abstractions, ok?
Are you really this dim? Did you completely miss the point of my longer post?

>>16898219
No, don't explain in abstractions. Be concrete.

What is perception?

If you have the knowledge you claim to have about how it works and what it is, you should be able to explain your understanding in very explicit biological terms.

>>16898145
A baby first uses perception for knowledge. Then the universe is blocked off to an end to itself because they're perceiving something outside of itself autonomously from birth. Knowledge is reaching ourselves.

>>16898226
You're the same retard of whom >>16898109 is talking, aren't you?

File: u.jpg (30 KB)

30 KB JPG

>>16898231
If you were able to provide a clear and direct answer, you would have done so. The fact that you are not able to, makes anything you say meaningless.

Support your claims with concrete data that is grounded in biology, data that can be referenced. As long as you don't, what the fuck are you actually even saying?

>>16898240
You're the same retard of whom >>16898109 is talking, aren't you? If you weren't that retard, you'd be able to provide a clear and direct answer.

>>16897011
thanks for the update captain obvious

File: 1082602670.jpg (214.9 KB)

214.9 KB JPG

>>16897169

>>16897011
>Scientists confirming what religious people have known for ages.
AGAIN

>>16897011
>Scientists confirming what religious people have known for ages.
AGAIN

>>16898725
This is so good. Make one with a refillable shitbag so you can practice bed side manner when the patient shits all over your hand. Get graded on how you coax some microsoft sam jippity agent. You have to admonish them for not drinking the diarrhea soup before.
ditto for some cum receptacle for diddling the prostate
A perfect humiliation ritual to be performed in front of a class by any bright eye hopefuls.

File: 1759026845422552.jpg (19.6 KB)

19.6 KB JPG

>>16897011
Obviously. You don't need scientists to tell you that.

>>16900729
You mean philosophers anticipated this, even the laboratory confirmation?

>>16900802
You also don't need philosophers. It's obvious from various perspectives (empirical, rational) available to anyone who cares to investigate it.

>>16900908
>You also don't need philosophers. It's obvious from various perspectives (empirical, rational) available to anyone who cares to investigate it.
And we can do that and the people before the 20th century couldn't because?

>>16900930
They could, and they did.

>>16898725
is that really all it takes? why can't i finger my own butt and see if it's lumpy? why pay a doctor thousands of dollars to get fingered

>>16900933
>>16900930
>They could, and they did.
They never really phrased it in such terms. "Your brain edits reality" is the kind of idiotic proclamation only an empirical science, in its infantile stage, can come up.

>>16897011
You have a bad mental model. Nothing is being edited, there is no inner you which is being shielded from true reality by your brain. Your are your brain, and you interpret reality as best as you can.

>>16901422
>Your are your brain
Do you have any data to back up this claim?

>>16901422
>you interpret reality as best as you can.
You have a bad mental model. There is no inner reality which is being interpreted from an outer reality by your brain. You are reality being synthesized exactly the way it needs to.

>>16900988
Nobody’s stopping you.

>>16897048
This was the one expirmenet that completely annihilated my belief in god and free will.
The first time i read about it i was completely distraught.
Another neurologist called Jose Manuel Delgado had similar expirmenets

>>16903603
You're too stupid and impulsive to even lie convincingly. These types of experiments are a dime a dozen, they don't prove anything and never actually change anyone's mind except for helping low IQ people rationalize preexisting doubts they don't acknowledge.

>>16897048
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9iNMxjxL7k