Illusion in the mind

[pljames]

 ???I remember being asked to focus an a picture. Then something happened. At first the object looked like a vase then two people. How does that work in the mind? pl

[sakoz]

 Search the 'Necker  Cube'. You look at a 'stick' figure of a cube, you 'see' it either from the 'top' or 'bottom', then what you see "shifts' back and forth' I said what you 'see shifts', not the firgure itself, the figure is not animated, the animation occurs IN you. Your brain always trys to 'match' whatever you look at with some image from the past. In the case of the 'Necker Cube' you have two images that "fit" what you look at. It's AS IF the brain says' this image fits, but so does this one, take your pick or both.' I "love" the Necker Cube. I hope you report back after you look at it. You might 'swear' it's 'animated', lol.

[Enigma]

You mean the Rubin Vase?



It appears like it does because of figure-ground separation during visual perception.   

[sakoz]

Enigma;  would you add Necker Cube next to your Rubin Vase, please? I'm as impressed as pljames is

[Enigma]

[pljames]

And I thought the mind was simple. I'm back to complex. pl

[sakoz]

Thank you very much Enigma; I was hoping, you could put it side by side with  Rubin Vase.
Sometimes I can 'edit' (add to a post and sometimes not)is there a time limit on when you can edit?

pljames; " For our next trick..." lol
I'm trying to explain how we use our own images to "trick" ourselves into fear, anxiety, stress, dysfunctional behavior by 'conditioning' ourselves like Pavlov's dogs, and not recognizing WE'RE doing it to our selves.

[sakoz]

pljames; Which perception looks "more real", the Rubin Vase or the Silhouette profiles? (If I had written;" Which is more real, the Rubin Vase or the silhouette profiles? Notice the difference)  While seeing one image, does the other exist? The second statement about the vase and profiles implies they are 'real' rather than images on a computer screen. Most people make that "error" with images in their 'mind', they 'mistakenly' believe their 'mental images' are real. What do you get when you react to your images BELIEVED real? Ought we take perceptions seriously without test/verification? What's one lesson we learn from these 'diagrams'?
The alternative perceptions are immediately apparent. But suppose someone believes; "Nobody likes me."  'beliefs become perceptions', when they don't recognize that, it does not occur to them that alternative belief/perception is possible, they might spend their whole life "locked into" that belief/perception that may be false to begin with. ( This applies to all beliefs)
I find that (for me) remembering; "ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE/PERCEPTION IS POSSIBLE"; has a 'therapeutic effect',  even 'empowering'. We don't take our 'ephemeral thought-images seriously'. From the outside we look like anyone else, but on the inside we 'manage' our images rather than  be 'managed' by them.

[sakoz]

It might be indulging in anthropomorphism to say believing a thought is to inbue/inffuse consciousness in images as "life-force", but the effects of 'believing' seem that way.
When we 'stop' believing a thought, in effect, we withdrawn it's 'life-force'. Thoughts are our creation* .
When molecules,atoms, sub-atomic particles were first postulated, it seemed far-fetched at the time.   E=mc2; indeed. You kidding?
* "Thoughts are our creation", is debatable. Brains might be "receivers/transducers"; like radios and T.V.s. The sound and pictures do not appear to come from someplace else other than from the units themselves.
When we look at T.V., we 'look' at pixels but 'see' images as a result. Physicists tell us we' look at' quantuum energy vibrating', but 'see' images our nervous system "construes/constructs" of the quanta, the same as we do with pixels. This may be superfluous for daily living; so we 'settle' for perceptions face value, but as seen by the illustrations, ought we to take perceptions at 'face-value'?
There are other perceptions/perspectives, why "lock in" only on one, that might even be a erroneous one?

[pljames]

I see more of the vase as the silhouette profiles.  That cube has enlightened me to understand the mind it seems is its own entity. The cube then is a created illusion I created by believing it's there? Question, empty space states what we observe and believe is a created illusion. I cannot put my mind around that one. Reality is reality from reality comes illusion or vice versa? pl

[pljames]

Thank you very much Enigma; I was hoping, you could put it side by side with  Rubin Vase.
Sometimes I can 'edit' (add to a post and sometimes not)is there a time limit on when you can edit?

pljames; " For our next trick..." lol
I'm trying to explain how we use our own images to "trick" ourselves into fear, anxiety, stress, dysfunctional behavior by 'conditioning' ourselves like Pavlov's dogs, and not recognizing WE'RE doing it to our selves.

That doesn't say much for rational/logical thinking. I see feel sense and believe what I see feel sense...is real. I am awake aware and conscious. And the opposite is darkness nothing. I will stick with conscious be it a illusion or not.pl

[S. Earl Martin]

This brings to mind the truth untruth proposition. If an event happens and A occurs. Then someone in power claims A did not occur, but B occured. If enough people believe B occured? Does B become real  or true to an extent? People begin acting on B as if it occured. B is written in history books as truth. People actually believe B to be true. Time goes on and there is no way to disprove B. Maybe Paul Revere did warn the British? LOL!

[Enigma]

This brings to mind the truth untruth proposition. If an event happens and A occurs. Then someone in power claims A did not occur, but B occured. If enough people believe B occured? Does B become real  or true to an extent? People begin acting on B as if it occured. B is written in history books as truth. People actually believe B to be true. Time goes on and there is no way to disprove B. Maybe Paul Revere did warn the British? LOL!

A is still true and B is still false.  Subjective beliefs do not affect objective reality.  A wise man once said, "the beautiful thing about science is that it works whether or not you believe in it."  That's why evolution is a real and ongoing process whether or not people believe in it.

[S. Earl Martin]

Subjective beliefs do not affect objective reality.

I disagree the subject belief would be B. Because people believe it and are acting on it reality is being changed. So subjective reality would be changed? No?

[Enigma]

Your original proposition was that "Event A occurred, but the powers that be convinced people that Event A did not occur and that Event B occurred.  Therefore, is Event B a real/true event?"  I'm saying that no, Event B is not real and is not true because subjective beliefs do not affect past objective reality.  People can believe and act on false beliefs and live their life as if the false belief was true, but this does not change the objective truth value of reality.  For example, Young Earth Creationists sincerely believe and live their life as if evolution is false and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  But these beliefs do not change the facts that evolution is a real and ongoing process and that the Earth is 4.6 million years old.

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay I understand now. Thank's. Also I believe because time is based on the speed of light and the distance from one object to the next. That the earth and everything else exists forever somewhere.

[S. Earl Martin]

Here let me explain. First the belief that the Earth is 4.6 million years old is not a fact. In order for it to be a fact it would require a 4.6 million year old standard of measurement. So it is a theory or a belief. It is based on information that indicates a possibility.

Now as to my statement about time and space. Many physicists have used the comparesion between sound waves and light including Einstien. He demonstarted that as sound waves come toward you they compress and as they pass by they stretch. Light reacts the same way. So does time.

So for example someone is hammering a board. Bang bang bang! To them the sound is instantanious. If someone else is observing at a distance they see the person swing the hammer, but no sound. Then Bang bang bang! They hear the sound. This is because light and sound travel at different speeds. The two people hear the sound at different times, but it is actually happening at different times. The same is true with light. If someone 1 light year from the seen looked at the person hammering? They would see a year back in time. It would be the present to them and from there prespective it would be happening in real time. Just as the sound reached the different people at different times so the light would reach at different times. The further out you go the further back in time. From the person hammering it would be the past. From the distant person it would be the present. Because light takes time to travel, just as the two sounds happen at different times. The two events happen at different times even though they are the same event. So in theory everything is happening somewhere forever. The cosmos is infinite. The passage of time is an illusion based on perspective.