Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
@Myst, I am pretty sure that the pure visual experience is contaminated, or at least highly limited by our expectations and our perceptual capacities
Maybe I wasn't clear bc I said the same in my first sentence in this thread



For example, photography changed how people understood visual phenomena. John Szarkowski in “The Photographer’s Eye” touches on this and says, regarding human limitations at perceiving time:

“The galloping horse is the classic example. As lovingly drawn through all the battle scenes and sporting prints of Christendom, the horse ran with four feet extended, like a fugitive from a carousel.
Interesting, I guess I never saw a galloping horse in real life (just standing or walking ones), in video I don't really see it as always having all four feet extended, maybe video is different (normal playback speed)



And of course there’s so much out there about stuff like attentional bias (the invisible gorilla) and how people perceive all kinds of things according to wired-in cognitive preferences (universal principles of design) and detecting (or not detecting) microexpressions. I do think we can accept there is a “thing in itself” defined maybe as our initial sense impression, so long as we understand that this impression is already mediated and shaped in ways we aren’t generally conscious of.
I saw the gorilla in the test but this depends on the individual btw whether they see it or not. And yeah, microexpressions is another individual difference.