Mysteries of the Brain

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The real question is what is reality?

Good question...

Neurotransmissions are translated representations of images and sensations which we assume are the exact replicas of what exists in a realm exterior to our minds.

That's certainly the way it feels, but neuroscience has revealed that the brain actually constructs an internal model of what it expects to be there, based on experience, and uses the very limited sensory input only to update the model and correct any conflicts between model and what we sense - but these corrections and updates are dependent on where our focus of attention is; our internal model can have major unnoticed discrepancies with the real world if our focus of attention has been on one thing for a while. One reason why eye-witness evidence can be so conflicting and unreliable.

Reality, for most people, is the internal model they have constructed.

 

[Radrook]

Good question...

That's certainly the way it feels, but neuroscience has revealed that the brain actually constructs an internal model of what it expects to be there, based on experience, and uses the very limited sensory input only to update the model and correct any conflicts between model and what we sense - but these corrections and updates are dependent on where our focus of attention is; our internal model can have major unnoticed discrepancies with the real world if our focus of attention has been on one thing for a while. One reason why eye-witness evidence can be so conflicting and unreliable.

Reality, for most people, is the internal model they have constructed.

Strange! One would expect that if attention is focused on a crime scene then accuracy of memory would be enhanced.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Strange! One would expect that if attention is focused on a crime scene then accuracy of memory would be enhanced.

Usually attention is distracted from whatever the witness was doing at the time, to the crime events that caught their eye (or ear). This is often something incidental or secondary to the main or important aspects of the crime, and because it is unexpected, attention is narrowly focused what first attracted it, so as to work out what is happening, and there is some confusion until it's figured out (sometimes wrongly). This means that events around the focus of attention are poorly perceived (less well than in normal situations), and some may not be perceived at all. So, much of the memory of the crime may be 'reconstructed' according to expectations and fragmentary perceptual clues.

Well-trained officers arriving at the scene will try to isolate eye-witnesses from one-another because there is a powerful tendency to adopt what others say they saw into one's own reconstruction, and to adjust other details according to how confident they seem of their own version. In simulated crime experiments, it's been shown remarkably easy to corrupt or introduce completely invented details into witnesses own memories of what they observed simply by having a stooge exclaim them shortly afterwards (e.g. "Wow, did you see that guy's tattoos?", "He had a gun!", "Where did the girl go?", etc.).

 

[Radrook]

Usually attention is distracted from whatever the witness was doing at the time, to the crime events that caught their eye (or ear). This is often something incidental or secondary to the main or important aspects of the crime, and because it is unexpected, attention is narrowly focused what first attracted it, so as to work out what is happening, and there is some confusion until it's figured out (sometimes wrongly). This means that events around the focus of attention are poorly perceived (less well than in normal situations), and some may not be perceived at all. So, much of the memory of the crime may be 'reconstructed' according to expectations and fragmentary perceptual clues.

Well-trained officers arriving at the scene will try to isolate eye-witnesses from one-another because there is a powerful tendency to adopt what others say they saw into one's own reconstruction, and to adjust other details according to how confident they seem of their own version. In simulated crime experiments, it's been shown remarkably easy to corrupt or introduce completely invented details into witnesses own memories of what they observed simply by having a stooge exclaim them shortly afterwards (e.g. "Wow, did you see that guy's tattoos?", "He had a gun!", "Where did the girl go?", etc.).

There are also cases where suspects are interrogated in such away that they are ultimately pressured into admission of guilt where no guilt was actually involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are also cases where suspects are interrogated in such away that they are ultimately pressured into admission of guilt where no guilt was actually involved.

Yes, continuous pressure and stress under interrogation can make people admit guilt just for some relief, thinking that they can always deny it later, or that eventually, 'the truth will out'. Interrogation can even make people doubt themselves to the point that they start considering that they might have committed the crime and 'suppressed' it.

 

[Yennora]

The real question is what is reality? Neurotransmissions are translated representations of images and sensations
which we assume are the exact replicas of what exists in a realm exterior to our minds. The problem is that not all creatures perceive identical stimuli in a similar way. For example, a bee perceives a flower via its compound eyes in a manner totally different than we do. So which is the real flower, the one the bee perceives or the one we perceive or neither of the twain?

See Like A Bee: Ultraviolet Flower Photography

Interesting question, I think reality is not only what we see but maybe what we also touch? So if we talk about the flower's mass and volume, that's a reality in itself, knowing that mass does not change with location, here we have a consistent "truth", but concerning the colors, I was looking for others opinion over this topic and I found this:

It is fascinating how he described our perception to the outside world that its purpose is to "marvel" us, sadly he claims that there is "no reason", but I think both of us know the reason.

Also bees eyesight supports their purpose, while ours? I think we would still live if we were blind to all wavelengths of light but one, so I cannot see it as a method of adaptation or survival, I see it as a bonus from the creator.

Check this too from How Bees See And Why It Matters | Bee Culture

"Bees also have the ability to see color much faster than humans. Their color vision is the fastest in the animal world-five times faster than humans. So while we may have trouble distinguishing one flower in a group from another, bees don’t. They see each individual flower. Some flower petals appear to change color, depending upon the angle. This is known as iridescence. It’s often in the UV spectrum, so we can’t see it. But, bees can. They see these shiny petals and associate them with sugar. Thus, the flower becomes more attractive to the bee and gets pollinated."

 

[Zurückschlagen]

Things that made me realize I'm pretty darn stupid are these:

* Why do we yawn?
* How do we know when someone is staring at us, how is the 6th sense working and which organ is controlling it?
* Why crocodiles are immortal and can't die, what makes them different and why we're not like them?

Those are the most weird that I remember right now.

 

[MissRowy]

I wouldn't say those things are stupid brother.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Interesting question, I think reality is not only what we see but maybe what we also touch? So if we talk about the flower's mass and volume, that's a reality in itself, knowing that mass does not change with location, here we have a consistent "truth" ...

You seem to be describing Locke's Primary and Secondary properties (although they've been debated by philosophers since Democritus). Put simply, primary properties are the objective properties of an object (e.g. mass), and secondary properties are properties we subjectively attribute to it (e.g. colour).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Things that made me realize I'm pretty darn stupid are these:

* Why do we yawn?

There are several plausible explanations.

* How do we know when someone is staring at us, how is the 6th sense working and which organ is controlling it?

Experiments have shown that we can't do this - but we can pick up unconscious cues from other people's gaze direction, and if we turn around in crowds (for whatever reason) there's a good chance someone will be looking in our direction - often because they see us turn around.

* Why crocodiles are immortal and can't die, what makes them different and why we're not like them?

They don't seem to grow old, but they definitely die (otherwise we'd be knee deep in them). If they're not killed by other causes (disease, other crocodiles, man, etc.), they get too big or slow to feed sufficiently well to keep themselves going. We're not like them because we evolved to survive a different set of environmental challenges.

 

[Zurückschlagen]

You can't explain them, no matter how hard you try.

I know Crocodiles die from disease, men, wounds, or if they grow without obstacles, they will die of hunger. They can grow super big in size, so their muscles will eventually need more energy and meat. But that does not explain why they do not age.

About yawning, suggestions but not proof.
"Scientists haven’t yet pinpointed the reason"
I often yawn when I hear someone do it over the phone. This makes things even more complicated. This seems to be a very sophisticated mechanism that nobody knows how it works.

About the 6th sense, I was repairing my car one night, and I felt this weird feeling, that someone's watching me. It was 3 in the morning, on a regular day, pitch dark, I had my flashlight attached to my head. So I got that weird vibe that I have to go check it out, I turn off the flashlight while I'm under the car, I slowly stand up, look around, to see my neighbor is watching me through her curtains. And she quickly hid. I was working for 3 or four hours on my car, still I felt the weird feeling only once, and I saw her. Do you think she was standing on her window all night long? I don't really think so. Not to mention, her lights were off, and I heard no sounds.

 

[Radrook]

You can't explain them, no matter how hard you try.

I know Crocodiles die from disease, men, wounds, or if they grow without obstacles, they will die of hunger. They can grow super big in size, so their muscles will eventually need more energy and meat. But that does not explain why they do not age.

About yawning, suggestions but not proof.
"Scientists haven’t yet pinpointed the reason"
I often yawn when I hear someone do it over the phone. This makes things even more complicated. This seems to be a very sophisticated mechanism that nobody knows how it works.

About the 6th sense, I was repairing my car one night, and I felt this weird feeling, that someone's watching me. It was 3 in the morning, on a regular day, pitch dark, I had my flashlight attached to my head. So I got that weird vibe that I have to go check it out, I turn off the flashlight while I'm under the car, I slowly stand up, look around, to see my neighbor is watching me through her curtains. And she quickly hid. I was working for 3 or four hours on my car, still I felt the weird feeling only once, and I saw her. Do you think she was standing on her window all night long? I don't really think so. Not to mention, her lights were off, and I heard no sounds.

Strange as it might seem there are animals who don't show sighs of ageing as we humans do and die from accidents or sickness instead:

Negligible Senescence
But, here on Earth, living with us, are a few species that exhibit Negligible Senescence. That means, they show almost no signs of aging, or they are ‘biologically immortal’. Animals like these only die due to diseases, accidents or predators.

In animals, sea urchins, lobsters, clams and hydras are some examples. Vertebrates like a few Tortoises, Turtles, Crocodiles, Alligators, Rougheye rock fish and Flounders have been not observed to have aged biologically. That is the reason we had a 255 year old tortoise in the Kolkata zoo till the year 2006.
Crocodiles Do Not Die

That means that their brains remain neurologically intact during their whole lives as opposed to ours which begin losing brain cells at an increasing rate as we age.

 

[Radrook]

Interesting question, I think reality is not only what we see but maybe what we also touch? So if we talk about the flower's mass and volume, that's a reality in itself, knowing that mass does not change with location, here we have a consistent "truth", but concerning the colors, I was looking for others opinion over this topic and I found this:

It is fascinating how he described our perception to the outside world that its purpose is to "marvel" us, sadly he claims that there is "no reason", but I think both of us know the reason.

Also bees eyesight supports their purpose, while ours? I think we would still live if we were blind to all wavelengths of light but one, so I cannot see it as a method of adaptation or survival, I see it as a bonus from the creator.

Check this too from How Bees See And Why It Matters | Bee Culture

"Bees also have the ability to see color much faster than humans. Their color vision is the fastest in the animal world-five times faster than humans. So while we may have trouble distinguishing one flower in a group from another, bees don’t. They see each individual flower. Some flower petals appear to change color, depending upon the angle. This is known as iridescence. It’s often in the UV spectrum, so we can’t see it. But, bees can. They see these shiny petals and associate them with sugar. Thus, the flower becomes more attractive to the bee and gets pollinated."

In short each creature perceives what we assume as the exterior world via its neural hardwiring. Which means that ultimately reality is subjective. Which indeed is the real flower, the one that the bee perceives or the one we perceive? The answer can be either both or neither since what we actually appear to be perceiving is merely the interpretation of sense impressions via neural transmitter sequences which our brains interprets for us into images. Alter the neural transmission signals via the optic nerve and we have an entirely different flower or no flower at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

In short each creature perceives what we assume as the exterior world via its neural hardwiring. Which means that ultimately reality is subjective.

Does not follow.

 

[Radrook]

Does not follow.

Why not?

Is your reality the reality of a bee?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why not?

You're conflating subjective experience with the reality being experienced.

 

[Radrook]

You're conflating subjective experience with the reality being experienced.

Yes, I am aware of the difference between the ultimate reality and the subjectively perceived reality so I am definitely not conflating one with the other. The ultimate reality exists independent of any creature sense organs. The subjective reality exists by virtue of the perceiver's sense organs. Since neurological hardwiring differs drastically among animals then the perceived reality differs drastically. For example, some animals perceive the world in black and white and shades of gray. Others perceive in infra red and others in ultra violate. Even among human perceptions differ. As a child my son perceived ice-cream and honey as bitter when they are normally perceived as sweet.

Also, if we insist that our particular perceptions constitute the ultimate reality, then we would need to disqualify all other perceived realities as bogus. That would include realities perceived by spiritual, or alien creatures. All would need to be tagged as distortions. Conversely other creatures would argue that we are wrong.



,

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, I am aware of the difference between the ultimate reality and the subjectively perceived reality so I am definitely not conflating one with the other. The ultimate reality exists independent of any creature sense organs.

Then what did you mean by "ultimately reality is subjective"?

 

[Radrook]

Then what did you mean by "ultimately reality is subjective"?

I meant that we are forced to see it subjectively and in that way it must remain subjective because we are tethered to subjectivity by our senses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I meant that we are forced to see it subjectively and in that way it must remain subjective because we are tethered to subjectivity by our senses.

That our experience of reality is subjective is not news...