The PHI Experiment

Those of you who have read my book will know that I make great play upon a phenomenon known as the PHI Effect.

In 1910 Czech psychologist Max Wertheimer noted that two lights flashed through small apertures in a darkened room at short intervals would appear to be one light in motion; this perception of movement in a stationary object he termed ‘the PHI phenomenon’ and this in turn became the basis of a whole school of psychology, Gestalt. Together with two assistants, Wolfgang Köhler and Kurt Koffka, he began to study the PHI phenomenon in earnest. Although they spent many years looking into the subject it was to become something of an oddity within human perception. That did not mean that the phenomenon did not continue to intrigue and beguile all that encountered it.

In 1977, the philosopher Nelson Goodman asked psychologists Paul Kolers and Michael von Grunau what would happen if, in the PHI phenomenon, the two illuminated spots were of different colours. This was so simple but revolutionary that the two psychologists immediately set up an experiment. They had a good idea of what to expect; either that two flashing spots would replace the single spot, or an illusory spot would change from one colour to another working its way through all the hues between. What actually happened was astounding. Two different coloured spots were illuminated for 150 milliseconds each (with a 50-millisecond interval); the first spot seemed to begin moving and then change colour abruptly in the middle of its illusory passage toward the second location. Goodman wondered:

How are we able to fill in the spot at the intervening place-times along a path running from the first and second flash before the second flash occurs?

For Daniel Dennett the mind somehow holds back the full perception of this experience until it is fully understood. The colour change is experienced by consciousness after the exercise has been completed. Dennett says:

Suppose the first spot is red and the second, displaced, spot is green. Unless there is ‘precognition’ in the brain (an extravagant hypothesis we will postpone indefinitely), the illusory content, red switching to-green-in-midcourse cannot be created until after some identification of the second, green spot occurs in the brain. But if the second spot is already ‘in conscious experience’ would it not be too late to interpose the illusory content between the conscious experience of the red spot and the conscious experience of the green spot? How does the brain accommodate this sleight of hand?

I suggest that this proof that the brain 'buffers', and therefore by implication, 'records' sensory information before it is presented to consciousness. In this way I believe that I show how it can be that at the point of death a full recording of ones life can be re-shown as the 'Panoramic Life Review' as it is termed by NDE researchers.

On-line is a fascinating example of how the PHI phenomenon actually works. Follow this link and check it out:

http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/PHI/phi3.html

Let me know what you think.

Must-see interactive optical illusion

Just found a killer optical illusion here. The best part is that it is interactive so you can play with the parameters and try to figure out what is going on and why.

Creation through perception

Anthony's book arrived two days ago! One of my goals while reading ITLAD is to correlate Anthony's ideas with the work of Carl Jung (of whom I am a huge fan and student). So, on page 23 of ITLAD there is the statement:

The act of perception by a conscious entity beings matter into physical existence!

and my immediate mental connection was to Jung's Answer to Job in which he writes:

The character thus revealed [i.e. God] fits a personality who can only convince himself that he exists through his relation to an object. Such dependence on the object is absolute when the subject is totally lacking in self-reflection and therefore has no insight into himself. It is as if he existed only be reason of the fact that he has an object which assures him that he is really there. . . . Existence is only real when it is conscious to somebody. That is why the Creator needs conscious man even though, from sheer unconsciousness, he would like to prevent him from becoming conscious.

The italicized sentence (emphasis added by me) is almost identical to Anthony's statement. I'm not sure how far we can take this but one conclusion is that God is a wave function! And our interaction with him collapses him down to a measurable (and knowable?) entity.

I caught myself supporting this notion the other day. My daughter (almost 2) was sitting just outside my office door eating blueberries. She LOVES blueberries and was very intent on getting each one out of the bowl with her spoon and into her mouth. I was stepping over the piles of junk getting something off the printer or something and saw her and it arrested me. I just stood there watching her (she was so intent that she didn't notice me watching her). Then I found myself wishing that my wife would come out of the bedroom and see me. When I realized this thought had presented itself, I, again, thought of Jung and how this experience didn't exist until some consciousness -- outside of myself -- witnessed it. I really don't think it would have "worked" if my daughter looked up and "witnessed" it because she was in the experience (albeit unknowingly) the same as I.

Professor Richard L Gregory

With regard to the nature of vision and how absolutely peculiar it is I strongly suggest that any interested members of this blog check out the writings of neuropsychologist Professor Richard L Gregory. This guy is one of my all-time intellectual heroes.

His books Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Mirrors In Mind and Odd Perceptions introduced me to the idea that 'reality' and that version of reality that is presented to consciousness are very different constructs. Mirrors In Mind, when read with the fictions of Jorge Borges, can be (pun intended) quite powerful 'eye openers'.

His website is a real treasure trove of examples and academic papers, all of which are worth reading. Check it out at:

http://www.richardgregory.org/

How we see - Social Programming

In the movie "What The Bleep" it was claimed that the Maya of Central America simply did not see Cortez's ships as they sailed into view. Sailing ships were simpy unknown to them and their brains could not process what they were seeing. I am not so sure about this claim but it does highlight some interesting issues with regard to knowledge and perception. When I was at university I studed a phenomenon known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This suggests that language itself structures the way in which we perceive the world. Again quite interesting when discussed in the light of ITLAD. An example of how knowledge controls perception can be seen above. Most adults see a mildly erotic scene on the vase. This is because they have prior memory of such a scene. Children, apparently, see nine dolphins.

How many other strikingly obvious things are out there that we cannot 'see' because we simply are not educated to do so.

Is this again evidence for the Bohmian IMAX theory?

How Your Senses 'Matrix' You

Some people who come along to my talks are what I term 'literalists'. The believe that what they perceive through their senses is exactly what is happening 'out there'. In other words they consider that the senses present to consciousness an exact replica of what is real. As such the find elements of ITLAD totally counter-intuitive. I suggest that what we perceive has been amended and adapted by the mind before it is presented to consciousness and as such we have no real objective way of confirming the true existence of external objects. The technical term for this is Naïve Realism and is considered by most people to be absolute common sense. However as soon as somebody starts to read philosophy they find themselves discovering the painful truth that this is simply not correct. The image above is a classical example of how the mind adds detail where it is not present. If you look at closely at the image you will soon notice that the blue petals are moving in a circular motion. This is a total illusion. There is no movement - it is the 'creation' of the brain. That 'reality' is processed in this way is called Representative Realism and this is the what that most cognitive scientists believe is the real nature of cognition. If my theory is correct then 'reality' - or more accurately 'The Bohmian IMAX' is the real nature of reality - a fizzing and buzzing mass of electromagnetic energy attenuated and processed by the brain so that we can make sense of it all. For certain individuals the attenuator malfunctions and they perceive the Bohmian in all its glory. These people are diagnosed as schizophrenics. I am also of the opinion that severe autism is also involved - particularly asperger's syndrome. In my next book - publication date now confirmed for the 1st September 2008 - I will expand on this theory.