Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 8

[smcder]

That's the assumption I'm not sure has actually been confirmed in the study. It seems to me that our sense of balance tends to influence the position of our head, so when the plane lifts its nose that could ( and probably does in some cases ) cause heads to gimbal slightly, perhaps unnoticeably unless intentionally measured. The position of the eyes also needs to be taken into account. One might be tempted to think that such obvious things would have been taken into consideration, but then again, stereoscopic vision wasn't taken into consideration with the cup example, so that only goes to show how obvious variables can get overlooked, leading to erroneous conclusions. To be sure the effect is real, one would need to monitor the subject's head and eye positions accurately with some sort of instrumentation during takeoff. Actual perceptual factors could then be replicated on a camera.

Peripheral vision is also more powerful than might be considered. I know it's entirely possible to have the illusion of movement of my position just because my peripheral vision picks up cues from objects next to me, because it's happened to me more than one while sitting at a stop light, when the car next to me has rolled back slightly, making me think I'm going forward when I'm not. I don't see why the change in the angle of the objects on the ground, coupled with things like changing shadows inside the plane, and the subtle movement of people's heads could not lead to a similar illusion to the one described.

This produced some interesting hits:

Google head tilt airplane visual effect

Effects of FOV and aircraft bank on pilot head movement and reversal ...
Effects of FOV and aircraft bank on pilot head movement and reversal errors during simulated flight. - PubMed - NCBI
by JJ Gallimore - ‎1999 - ‎Cited by 19 - ‎Related articles
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that while flying under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) pilots tilt their head to keep the horizon stabilized on ...
Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia
Sensory illusions in aviation - Wikipedia
Because human senses are adapted for use on the ground, navigating by sensory input alone ... This is the most common illusion during flight, and can be caused by a sudden ... This can occur when tiltingthe head down (to look at an approach chart or to ... The reason why this visual illusion occurs is because of very small ...
Spatial Disorientation in Aviation - Page 112 - Google Books Result
isbn:1600864511 - Google Search
Fred H. Previc, ‎William R. Ercoline - 2004 - ‎Electronic books
... this "dual" hypothesis, large frames have been shown to affect perceived head tilt ... Ocular torsional effects have also been produced by large, static, tilted visual ... pilots in controlling aircraft attitude during actual flight (see Chapter 9, Sec.
Effects of field of view on pilot head movement - Wright State University
cecs.wright.edu/~jgalli/wave/FOVstudy.htm
Since limited FOV provided by HMDs significantly decreases visual stimuli, the ... Head tilt, pitch, and yaw were examined as a function of aircraft bank and FOV ...
[PDF]Spatial Disorientation - Federal Aviation Administration
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/SpatialD.pdf
stimuli (visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive) vary in magnitude, direction, and frequency. ... When the head is still and the airplane is straight and level, the fluid in the canals does .... When the head is tilted, the weight of the otoconia of the saccule pulls the cupula .... make one drowsy or affect brain functions in other ways.
Somatogravic Illusion - AviationKnowledge
aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:somatogravic-illusion
Sep 15, 2012 - Note how the hair (or macula) movement for head tilt backward and acceleration forward are exactly the same. ... As we no longer have the benefit of our visual system to resolve the ... This effect is shown below. 16-copy.jpg. Perceived and Actual Flight Paths due to the Somatogravic Illusion (image ...
Vestibular System and Illusions (OGHFA BN) - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Vestibular_System_and_Illusions_(OGHFA_BN)
Mar 9, 2013 - When there is limited visual input, as is common in many flight situations, the .... If the head and body start to tilt, the vestibular system will .... Angular acceleration due to changes in pitch can affect a vestibular illusion when the ...
[PDF]Visual Flow Display for Pilot Spatial Orientation - DiVA
uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:280305/FULLTEXT01.pdf
by L Eriksson - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
fields of view from the visual flow either reduced or not reduced the effects. ...... Head tiltup/backwards. I g. R. I g. R. Pitch attitude of aircraft. Perceived pitch ...
[PDF]The Optokinetic Cervical Reflex in Pilots of High-Performance Aircraft
https://dokumente.unibw.de/pub/bscw.cgi/.../ASEM_1997_68(6)_479-87.pdf
by RFK MERRYMAN - ‎Cited by 27 - ‎Related articles
reflex (OKCR), occurs during visual flight and is theorized to be an attempt by the ... indicate the OKCR caused pilots to tilt their heads during aircraft bank. (p < 0.0001). ... The effect of these results on pilot training, spatial disorientation, physio-.
Perception of the vertical with a head-mounted visual frame during ...
www.academia.edu/.../Perception_of_the_vertical_with_a_head-mounted_visual_fra...
The effects of tilting the head without visual frame and of tilting an .... The experimenter changed the frame orientation in the roll plane by acting on the tiltable ...



Searches related to head tilt airplane visual effect
coriolis illusion

black hole effect aviation

black hole approach illusion

elevator illusion

army aviation visual illusions

graveyard spin

the leans

somatogravic illusion faa


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

... that should get you started

 

[Randall]

In popular articles like this, they don't often go into these details, but maybe in the discussion notes or if this guy has a formally published piece, or in the original study you mention? - in my experience, the things I think of as critiques often have been taken into account.

The place I would look for that would be in studies for pilot training, I bet the military has examined every angle there is ... there might also be studies related to nausea in passengers as well that might have gone into designing visual cues into the airplane, etc.

You're probably right, but then again, if that's the case, why the obvious error missing stereoscopic vision as an explanation with the cup? That error cannot be rationalized as a simplification for the layman. It's just inaccurate. That gives us sufficient reason to wonder what else has been overlooked. However with respect to the point that the further study of sensory types and their relationships to one another might reveal new insights: I think it is worth looking into. I'm not sure what sort of insights we'd be looking for though. Can you think of anything?

 

[smcder]

I don't want to get off track ... I will try to have a look at the stereoscopic thingy later and see if it is an error, I've not watched the video, slow internet connection this a.m. so it would have to be in an article somewhere, maybe the one I linked above.

 

[smcder]

You're probably right, but then again, if that's the case, why the obvious error missing stereoscopic vision as an explanation with the cup? That error cannot be rationalized as a simplification for the layman. It's just inaccurate. That gives us sufficient reason to wonder what else has been overlooked. However with respect to the point that the further study of sensory types and their relationships to one another might reveal new insights: I think it is worth looking into. I'm not sure what sort of insights we'd be looking for though. Can you think of anything?

OK I got to the cup part - and I see what he's saying, I don't think he's wrong on that.

I bet @Soupie sees it too?

 

[Randall]

OK I got to the cup part - and I see what he's saying, I don't think he's wrong on that. I bet @Soupie sees it too?

I'm not disputing his point. I'm disputing that his example with the cup is an accurate representation of his point because it doesn't accurately answer the question he poses. If you don't believe stereoscopic vision would adequately explain his cup example without invoking multisensory or other psychological factors, then support your claim by disproving stereoscopic vision. It can't be done without making yourself look grossly uninformed or wilfully ignorant. For your convenience here are the quotes for his question and his answer:

The question:

"How can I be looking at a three dimensional object and seeming to experience a three dimensional object like a cup when I'm only visually presented with one side of the cup? And they say you know, "I can't see the other side of it. Maybe I'm just looking at a façade, but it doesn't look that way to me. It looks to me in my experience as though I'm seeing things which have three dimensional shapes. How can that be when I'm just looking at one side of the objects in front of me?"​

His answer:

"I think the answer is clear when you think of it in multisensory terms."​

 

[smcder]

I'm not disputing his point. I'm disputing that his example with the cup is an accurate representation of his point. If you don't believe stereoscopic vision would adequately explain his cup example without invoking multisensory or other psychological factors, then support your claim by disproving stereoscopic vision. It can't be done without making yourself look grossly uninformed or wilfully ignorant.

I took that he was saying that we use the other senses to verify what the eyes tell us, the eyes are fooled, but the hands aren't. There would be several examples of that - I don't know if it was true about the early films were the audience scrambled to get out of the way of the movie train or not ... there's also a number of examples of baseball players who are blind in one eye. So it seems they would be using other information from other senses. I tried it by throwing and catching objects with one eye closed and also reaching for objects - it's not easy but you'd get better over time.

Anyway, I don't think it just ruins his argument or his credibility.

 

[smcder]

I think if he wrote an article with all of that in it - it wouldn't be very popular, or it would be a formal study.

 

[Randall]

I just took that he was saying that we use the other senses to verify what the eyes tell us, the eyes are fooled, but the hands aren't. There would be several examples of that - I don't know if it was true about the early films were the audience scrambled to get out of the way of the movie train or not ... there's also a number of examples of baseball players who are blind in one eye. So it seems they would be using other information from other senses. I tried it by throwing and catching objects with one eye closed and also reaching for objects - it's not easy but you'd get better over time. Anyway, I don't think it just ruins his argument or his credibility.

I agree that there are multisensory and psychological factors involved in perceptual identification of objects. However using bad examples does lower one's credibility, and that's exactly why I wondered if something was missed in the airplane example. It's perfectly fair to think that if someone uses one bad example, that there might be more, and that they could lead to errors in research. Anyway, regardless, IMO this is a minor issue and I'm perfectly willing to step past it and accept that the general premise has merit.

 

[smcder]

I agree that there are multisensory and psychological factors involved in perceptual identification of objects. However using bad examples does lower one's credibility, and that's exactly why I wondered if something was missed in the airplane example. It's perfectly fair to think that if someone uses one bad example, that there might be more, and that they could lead to errors in research. Anyway, regardless, IMO this is a minor issue and I'm perfectly willing to step past it and accept that the general premise has merit.

Sounds good. Like I said I want to maintain my focus for a bit before branching off to another topic. Others on the thread may want to go on with this discussion or we might come back to it later.

 

[smcder]

Blind in one eye, Kernels' Vavra chases big-league dreams

One-eyed baseball players

Also, you might try throwing something up in the air and catching it with one eye closed. I wonder if you could learn to juggle that way? Of course you'd have to learn to juggle first - but maybe you could even learn to juggle with one eye closed? I can juggle two balls with one hand, so I guess I could juggle with one hand tied behind my back.

Anyway, I digress.

 

[smcder]

This was helpful

in looking at what a reconciliation might look like and considerations of if its desirable ... will require another viewing and some reading on the subject

 

[Randall]

This was helpful ... will require another viewing and some reading on the subject

In conjunction with the video, it might be advisable to view this: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[smcder]

In conjunction with the video, it might be advisable to view this: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"advisable"?

 

[smcder]

Naturalized Phenomenology?

most of the links I've found, so far, center around almost an "apologist" view of phenomenology ...? or efforts to make phenomenology serve empirical science.

... Zahavi maybe not as much(?), at least in recounting the original stances against psychologism, naturalism ... etc.

http://cfs.ku.dk/staff/zahavi-publications/naturalized_phenomenology.pdf/

This article does talk about phenomenology not being introspection and looks at Owen Flanagan's view and its discontents:

Naturalized Phenomenology?

"Still, the way Flanagan put it still seems troublesome if you're really committed to some form of pragmatism or transcendental phenomenology: you have to decide whether the scientific or the phenomenological claim is true."

... and get into the point that naturalism only has phenomenology to support it.

 

[smcder]

http://cfs.ku.dk/staff/zahavi-publications/naturalized_phenomenology.pdf/

However, insofar as naturalists would consider the scientific account of reality authoritative, a commitment to naturalism is bound to put pressure on the idea that philosophy (including phenomenology) can make a distinct and autonomous contribution to the study of reality.

"A vivid illustration of this tension can be found in the field of consciousness studies. As Francis Crick insists “it is hopeless to try to solve the problems of consciousness by general philosophical arguments; what is needed are suggestions for new experiments that might throw light on these problems.” (Crick 1995, 19). Indeed, on Crick’s view, “the study of consciousness is a scientific problem. [...] There is no justification for the view that only philosophers can deal with it.” (Crick 1995, 258). Quite on the contrary in fact, since philosophers “have had such a poor record over the last two thousand years that they would do better to show a certain modesty rather than the lofty superiority that they usually display.” (Crick 1995, 258). This is not to say that philosophers cannot make some kind of contribution, but they must “learn how to abandon their pet theories when the scientific evidence goes against them or they will only expose themselves to ridicule.”(Crick 1995, 258). In short, philosophers are welcome to join the common enterprise, but only as junior partners. Indeed, one suspects that philosophy (of mind) on Crick’s view will ultimately turn out to be dispensable. Whatever contribution it can make is propaedeutical and will eventually be replaced by a proper scientific account."

 

[Randall]

"advisable"?

Because the video is about Naturalized Phenomenology, having some idea what "Naturalized" is in reference to might be helpful for those ( like me ) who don't retain an encyclopedic knowledge of philosophical concepts in memory. Like other aspects of philosophy, it points out that there is no consensus on exactly what Naturalism means. Therefore the question can be looked at a number of different ways. The common ground appears to be a move toward the application of the scientific method, and in that context, phenomenology and psychology seem pretty much synonymous, which is what I've been saying for some time now.

BTW: Thanks for the excellent more detailed discussion in the paper cited above: http://cfs.ku.dk/staff/zahavi-publications/naturalized_phenomenology.pdf/

 

[smcder]

Because the video is about Naturalized Phenomenology, having some idea what "Naturalized" is in reference to might be helpful for those ( like me ) who don't retain an encyclopedic knowledge of philosophical concepts in memory. Like other aspects of philosophy, it points out that there is no consensus on exactly what Naturalism means. Therefore the question can be looked at a number of different ways. The common ground appears to be a move toward the application of the scientific method, and in that context, phenomenology and psychology seem pretty much synonymous, which is what I've been saying for some time now.

Those last bits are too squishy for me ... need to be a little more rigorous.

 

[smcder]

I'm not seeing the synonymity thing: phen/psy ... and I have a terrible memory, so I let the internet store most of my philosophical concepts. I let it store most everything, really.

 

[smcder]

@Constance

http://cfs.ku.dk/staff/zahavi-publications/naturalized_phenomenology.pdf/

Trying to figure out the phrase in bold below:

1. Husserl’s anti-naturalism

"To start with, let us briefly recapitulate the character and motivation for Husserl’s anti-naturalism. In the long essay Philosophy as Rigorous Science from 1910-11, Husserl describes naturalism as a fundamentally flawed philosophy (Husserl 1987, 41) and argues that it has typically had two different aims: the naturalization of ideality and normativity, and the naturalization of consciousness (Husserl 1987, 9). In his view, however, both attempts fail and both are misguided. The naturalistic reduction of ideality leads to scepticism (Husserl 1987, 7, 1984, 47). This, in fact, was one of Husserl’s main arguments in his famous fight against psychologism in the Logical Investigations."

 

[Randall]

Those last bits are too squishy for me ... need to be a little more rigorous.

I don't have the time here to compose entire papers, but I did add above that the PDF you posted does an excellent job of filling in a lot of the gaps.