If you've ever heard the quote "Seeing is believing.", you've heard the quote that made me question the nature of perception.

Wikipedia words it well, and I shall cite it because of this:

"Just as one object can give rise to multiple percepts, so an object may fail to give rise to any percept at all: if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it."

What does this mean in relation to you?

Well, there is one very good example of this. There's a story about the Native Americans and Columbus's ships. At first, none could see the ships, but the shaman of the tribe was able to see waves.

Let's stop here for a second and explain things.

People percieve things in different ways...or don't percieve it at all. We are constantly bombarded with much more stimuli than we can process, so we try to pick out what makes sense or seems relevant, and that becomes our world. The Natives did not see the ships because they'd seen nothing like it before, so their minds simply ignored it, making the ships invisible.

Okay, back to the story.

The shaman went out to the shore every day, trying to see what was making the waves. Little by little, he was able to see the ships. When he finally saw them, the shaman used his influence to bring the others to the shore and teach them to see the ships.

Story over, you know the rest.

The ships were invisible because the people didn't understand how to see them. Their minds simply blocked out the rest and used what was considered of a higher priority.

I believe that this is the same principle with seeing ghosts, energy, etc. Sometimes when people do not subconciously open their minds to seeing and feeling energy, they are less likely to experience the unexplained. The stimuli is there, but our minds ignore it unless taught to pay attention. Our brains are like kids with ADD trying to pay attention in class. We can't process everything.

Here's an easy example - you have two years classroom experience in Spanish and you're trying to get around in a Spanish speaking city. You automatically pick out and process the words you know or words that sound like your language - and ignore the rest.

My theory is open to question, discussion, etc. I encourage it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
(The link to what I cited from Wikipedia. Go Wiki!)

That's all well and good and perhaps true but what bugs me is the story of the Native Indians (which I have heard before on National Geographic or somesuch)...
...if you can see the waves the ships are making they cannot be DAYS away so the 'shaman went out to the shore every day' just does not make sense. IMO, the ships would have arrived within hours of seeing the waves. It sort of taints the credibility of that story which has been used a lot to demonstrate this type of thinking.

The other thing that makes me wonder about the 'we may not perceive that which we are unaccustomed to' view is the apparent UFO sightings ie. a couple not expecting to see anything driving along apparently sees a UFO - if it is unidentified then they should not be able to perceive it. There is probably a way around this logic and it is not the best example.

Another thing, does this mean that when the budding astronomers first looked through telescopes etc. they were not able to see galaxies because they never saw any such thing before? No accounts of that happening either. Again probably not the best example but one can keep on going. Anything new that one person builds/develops etc. and another has never seen before - is it not perceived? No such accounts.

IMO, we will perceive anything unknown but whether we understand it is another story.

Cheers

Guardian

In Neuro Linguistic programming, there is a phrase:

"The map is not the territory."

It basically means that we all see things differently, and sometimes some of us miss what is blindingly obvious to others, while some of us see what no one else can.

I assume there is a reason for this, and I'm pretty sure that if I could be bothered to research it, there would be claims that it's to do with our mind really not wanting to see things which go against our accepted beliefs. Once the skeptic see's a UFO they have to change their whole lifes point of view of the world. It's easier, and maybe safer, to close our eyes.

I have long been of the opinion the brain cannot be trusted - though we are obliged to rely on it for translations of the data it received from our eyes, nose, ears, from our sense of touch, etc. Some people are also aware the brain is able to receive and present to 'us' data from other more etherial sources - which produces precognition, intuition, etc.
If true, how did this 'psychic' ability become part of the brain's repertoire - presumably 'the evolutionary process' identified this as a valuable preservation strategy. It seems possible psychic ability was more widely used in the distant past and we are simply left with the lingering residue of a once widely accepted source of information. It seems to be a rule that what is of no use to a species is gradually divested over succeeding generations.
I am sure we give greater credence to information that can be related to past experience and presumed likelihood over the more 'flaky' types of experience. We are probably deluded here though - and there is still much science has to recognise and investigate.
I have experienced driving up to an intersection, stopping and carefully looking left and right for oncoming vehicles, then having determined the road is clear, driving forward and right into a bicyclist directly ahead of me and apparently in full view. Afterwards I couldn't believe it happened because my view was unobstructed and he was right there and I was so careful. But obviously not careful enough - I took my brain's assurance at face value. Afterwards, the only explanation that made sense to me was that I had actually told my brain to look for cars and trucks, and it has consequently ignored the bicyclist.
I think there are probably other disregarded aspects of 'seeing' too. I am especially good at spotting animal and insect life in the shadowed and confused background of woodland etc. I have always put this down to a combination of conscientiously scanning the field of view and possession of good visual discrimination (ie. separating like-coloured moth and tree trunk) - rather than simply good 'eyesight' - in optician's tests my eyesight isn't that good.
It also seems to be significant that if before engaging in a search for some lost object one carefully eyeballs such an object (say, a golf ball) for a few moments beforehand - the search is then more likely to bear fruit. Sounds dotty but for some reason (pre-programming of the sensorial apparatus?) it appears to work. One does not hear this touted as means of promoting successful searches - maybe it is purely psychological and maybe only works for certain types of individuals.
The throwaway comment 'can't see for looking' seems to hold a modecom of truth.
In my experience, older people who have had more experience of the seemingly inexplicable are more likely to accept that apparently plausible and reasonable explanations from non-experients may not, for all their apparent likelihood, be the right ones. Especially in view of cases in which a single contradictory aspect of the experience soundly defeats the 'hip-shot' tendered explanation, where all other aspects seem to support it. The telling aspect of the experience becomes liable to be targeted for discrediting to ensure the easy explanation shall stand, rather to return to square one and reconsider unequivocal available evidence. It seems important for some people to come up with a dismissive explanation for a mysterious event - even if the facts do not fit - an curious phenomenon in its own right, and rather like the scientist deliberately skewing the data to fit a cherished theory.
It is interesting that the greatest cause of false conviction (vide the Innocence Project) is eye-witness testimony. To the extent one would have thought this kind of evidence would be treated as of secondary importance and never allowed as sole evidence in a court case. Interestingly, the second greatest cause of wrongful conviction is false confession - we can guess where that comes from.

That's funny (well, not the actual event of course), my sister-in-law did the exact same thing last week. It does make sense that we somehow 'tell' the brain to look for 'symbols' ie. cars & trucks but not bikes. From what I've read, I think the brain works on 'symbolic' recognition rather than detail ie. you can recognise a friend even if they have for example changed their hairstyle or grown older etc.

I have quite the opposite view. IF 'psychic' ability exists, it has just evolved and come on the scene because of some type of necessity and the fact that we continually strive for spiritual enlightenment and keep asking question of how, why etc. with regards to existence. If any such supernatural abilities exist (or can exist) then I think it is just another step in evolution ie. instinct -> intelligence -> spiritual enlightenment -> 'non-physical' connections.

Guardian

We are not bombared with so much stimuli that we have to ignore some. I mean, what is there? What you see, what you hear, what you feel. We don't even break a sweat from processing that.

Morian, that story is totally untrue. The waves from the ship travel at the same speed as the ship itself, therefore they don't reach shore until the ship does. Also there is no way in hell you can notice the waves from a slow-moving sailship that is still days away from shore.

And of course the natives would have seen the ships, they afterall have eyes. The eyes recieve light, change it into electrochemical signals which go to the brain and cannot be ignored. Also, it wasn't like there was only one village of natives. Or did they all have super-shamans? Sure they were confused, but that doesn't change the fact that they saw the ships.


We don't see ghosts because they don't exist and we have no sensors for "energy" (apart from heat, kinetic, light, sound and maby some I missed).

You would still see the ship. Wether you want to see it is another issue.

At first i thought "what a silly idea, Especially the example of the ships (although i read that as the ships just a "few" metres out to sea, sending in waves as they rocked at anchor. The shaman could see the waves coming up on the beach but his mind did not process the image of the ship) any way, i thought, that's silly, if something is there you will see it, even if you don't recognise it. As i read on through the posts, however ,i remembered a night when, as a university student, i drove up to the local deli. (Probably had run out of cigarettes in those bad old days) It was dark and wet. I came up to a level crossing which had boom gates down, lights flashing and bells clamouring. Because my mind was "elsewhere" it did not process any of these warning signs until i was right on top of the crossing. The first thing i registered was the train whizzing across in front of me. Luckilly i was going very slowly and managed to stop with the boom gate across my bonnet/hood.Then my mind started to process the other stimuli. First i heard the bells then a little later the flashing lights became visible. I was stone cold sober and it was a very frightening experience
It was only later that i read how the mind can disconnect from the visual stimuli coming in, if it is busy processing other matters. I would guess this is how a lot of road accidents occur. If the mind can disconnect in this way it is possible that it refuses to accept/process an image it does not recognise. Simpler examples are the use of camouflage, and those images that look like a lady up one way and a bearded man up the other way, or those magic picture books where the image only becomes visible when the mind learns to process some unusual incoming signals in a certain way.

If anyone have a idea of ship or knowledge of ship only can see ship.. others will make you fear.. telling that it is a sea monster..

This is easy to clear up.

It is a well documented fact that primitive tribal people have no idea about technology.
When explorers visted cannibals in untouched regions, they were suprosed to find them still living in the stone age. The strange thing is these people could not recognise anything in a photo(even a photo of themselves or their family) and could never understand about things like glass and steel.

So obviously in the story above, its not that the indians couldnt see the ship, its just that to them its as irrelevant as a mountain or a cloud. The shaman could recognise the ships wake though.

Well, that also may be well and good but unless I am mistaken (and I have been mistaken before) the spirit of this thread was that people cannot PERCEIVE things they have never seen before. Perceive and recognise are two different beasts, last time I checked anyway.

So yes, this is most likely true:
...but the point of it is, they perceived these things just could not recognise them - for obvious reasons.

As I mentioned in my original reply...


Cheers

Guardian

They would still see the ship, it doesn't matter what the hell they think it is

What are we missing with the naked eye? A LOT. We all have six senses not just five.

An interesting experiment is to close your eyes and describe in full detail the room you are in. Then open them nd REALLY LOOK around you. You will almost certainly find that when you were describing the room, you would have completly missed a suprising amount of objects.

When I first did this in my living room, I couldn't believe how many ornaments I had forgotten, or had imagined were somewhere else in the room. Try it. Go on!

Actually we have at least 9 senses, possibly up to 21.



I've done something like that before, what's weird is you know everything subconsciously, if you really wanted to you could probably walk around with your eyes closed without knocking anything over, but you just aren't aware of every thing consciously.



You speak about tribal people as if they are all one unit. Some tribal people have no idea about technology, however others have been exposed to it.

I find hard to believe that srory about native americans... I thought that you must notice an object which you have never seen much faster... this seem more logical. Natives every day come near the sea and see clear horizon, and suddenly there is something big and unusual on this straight line!

No, we have five. Some idiots think that they have six because they "feel special" but they don't.

There is a visual blind spot thst our brains compensate for. Put two coins a few inches apart on a table and position your eyes about a foot away from the coins. Place your right hand over your right eye and look at the coin on the right hand coin with your left eye. If you move your head up and down a bit, the coin on the left will partially or completely... disappear!

I just tried it and the coin on the left disappeared immediately. A psychology text book I have suggests this blind spot is caused by "the point at which the nerves of the eye converge to form the optic nerve...People are usually unaware of the blind spot; the brain compensates for this blank portion of vision by mentally filling in uniform patterns."
Zick Rubin & Edward McNeil, Psychology, Being Human, 4th Ed. Harper and Row, 1985.

So we are creating atleast a bit of visual reality. Our eyes feed information for processing by our brain which fills in the blanks from other information we are seeing or maybe from previous experience of what things look like. But if the sight of something fits into the blind spot completely, we might miss it altogether?

On a previous post, some people may not recognise themselves in a photo if they've never seen themselves in a mirror and don't know what they look like. Imagine if we didn't have mirrors and we had to take a photo everytime we wanted to check our appearance. I mean friends can be so unreliable...