Si - how to discover it

[golden]

@Myst, I am pretty sure that the pure visual experience is contaminated, or at least highly limited by our expectations and our perceptual capacities. 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. Not till Muybridge successfully photographed a galloping horse in 1878 was the convention broken. It was this way also with the flight of birds, the play of muscles on an athlete’s back, the drape of a pedestrian’s clothing, and the fugitive expressions of a human face.”

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.

[Myst]

@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.

[golden]

Maybe I wasn't clear bc I said the same in my first sentence in this thread

Yes, I was agreeing with you and offering supporting discussion.

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)

People used to be very familiar with horses and visually they imagined that the gallop had legs extended, but photos showed that to be incorrect. In response, people’s visual imaginations and perceptions seem to have changed to fit what the technology showed. As another writer on photography history, William Ivins, put it:

“At first the public had talked a great deal about what it called photographic distortion.” But “it was not long before men began to think photographically, and thus to see for themselves things what it had previously taken the photograph to reveal to their astonished and protesting eyes.” So the exposure to those images arguably changed how people see.

I’m just saying in general that I find the idea of pure reality highly problematic. I hold trying to square up with reality as much as possible as a core personal value, but I also recognize it is not fully possible. This is my response for this thread in general, not at you since I think you understand this very well.

[Myst]

Yes, I was agreeing with you and offering supporting discussion.

Ah gotcha

People used to be very familiar with horses and visually they imagined that the gallop had legs extended, but photos showed that to be incorrect. In response, people’s visual imaginations and perceptions seem to have changed to fit what the technology showed. As another writer on photography history, William Ivins, put it:

“At first the public had talked a great deal about what it called photographic distortion.” But “it was not long before men began to think photographically, and thus to see for themselves things what it had previously taken the photograph to reveal to their astonished and protesting eyes.” So the exposure to those images arguably changed how people see.

Interesting, well, there's top-down processing in the brain for sure. Did no one ever see/observe the galloping horses correctly or just most people didn't?

I’m just saying in general that I find the idea of pure reality highly problematic. I hold trying to square up with reality as much as possible as a core personal value, but I also recognize it is not fully possible. This is my response for this thread in general, not at you since I think you understand this very well.

Yeha get you. I'm already happy if our perceptions works well enough lol