Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer

[Scaramanga]

This isn't a fair comparison, though — we're talking about the phenomenology of three lights in the sky, not 3 carefully arranged Pac-Men accompanied by 3 carefully arranged V's.

Three lights in the sky will, by definition, form a triangle. It is, not surprisingly, the simplest arrangement of lights that the mind can convert into ' a craft'. The brain assumes the 3 lights are connected, and 'sees' a craft at whatever alignment the lights are at. If the lights start to appear more in a straight line, the brain assumes the 'craft' is becoming edge on....and so on. Whatever the 3 lights do will be converted into some orientation of 'triangular craft'.

It thus does not surprise me in the least that 'triangular craft' form so many UFO reports. And the tendency of the brain to 'fill in' the edges of the craft is known physiology. My diagram was a perfectly 'fair' illustration of just that. The brain does fill in the details...that is well known science. There is no 'white triangle' in the image...other than one the brain has created. There are numerous similar examples....I just provided the first one I came across.

 

[Scaramanga]

The upper right example creates a strong sense of rotation

But you know yourself that that is just an illusion.....in fact all you need in order to produce 'rotation' of the imaginary craft is have the 3 lights moving at 90 degrees to each other or even vaguely close to that. As there are only 3 lights ( the simplest configuration that produces a 'craft' ) the chances of this occurring randomly are not insignificant. Thus I would expect that now and then people would see 3 totally dissociated lights in the sky behave in the manner of 'one craft' rotating. I'd be most surprised if this didn't happen now and then !

I would say it ought to even be possible to determine the incidence of this....one of our more mathematically minded members might wish to apply their skills to that

 

[John J.]

You'd need to consider that REPORTS of seeing a black triangle might not be the same thing as people SEEING a black triangle. A flap is a situation where hoaxers may want to get in on the fun, or distant lights might be assumed to be one of those triangles everybody is talking about.

I totally 100% agree!
My post was an attempt to argue why it is very unlikely that "black triangle" sightings have a neurological basis, a hypothesis raised by someone else.
By making that point, I wasn't entertaining any other hypothesis, other than a brief referral to my belief that UFO sightings are influenced by social and cultural factors.
The Belgian "triangle" flap has parallels with other flaps, and provides no testable evidence of ETI in any way.
It does provide evidence of misidentification of mundane aircraft, deliberate hoaxing, increased reports following increased publicity and perhaps the, um, over-enthusiastic documentation of sightings by a UFO enthusiast's group.

(1) Neuromedical conditions that affect low- or intermediate-level processing (e.g. a hypothetical "surplus" of a specific neurotransmitter, or simple [neuroanatomically limited] focal seizures) also tend to affect higher-level processing, with effects on behaviour, broader cognition and sometimes level of consciousness.

Where is your evidence for this?

While a lesion in V2 spares visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, it strongly affects a monkey's ability to perform more complex spatial tasks [1].

Visual Cortex: The Continuing Puzzle of Area V2, GBoynton, G.M., Hegdé, J., 2004, Current Biology 14(13),
link here (Science Direct).
A lesion in V2, a low/ intermediate processing level, causes observable behavioural changes relating to higher processing.
(V2 is the area of visual cortex implicated in the processing of illusory contours, that's why I'm citing this study).

Sudden-onset deficits or non-optimal changes in lower-level processing manifest themselves as observable deficits in dependent higher-level functioning. I don't think this is contentious.

For example, the location of a stroke in the brain generally determines the effect on function, language, cognition, etc.

Absolutely- if the CVA affects a small area. Same with some penetrating head injuries ("Patient N.A." and anterograde amnesia) and, rarely, infection (herpes simplex virus has been implicated in discrete local damage).
I mentioned the selective toxicity of MPTP on the substantia nigra (which obviously caused massive volitional movement deficit).
More commonly, CVA sufferers (and other people who have sustained brain insult) present with a pattern of deficits, which can be hard to identify or tease apart from each other:
Oliver Sack' s Dr P., who was the man who mistook his wife's head for a hat, is often given as a clear-cut example of prosopagnosia (I honestly can't remember if Oliver Sacks actually used the term prosopagnosia for Dr P.) but the current consensus appears to be that Dr P. actually had a general visual agnosia.

everyone's brain is wired differently so you never know how they'll be affected by a condition or trauma.

I think it highly unlikely that several hundred unrelated people, mainly in Belgium, over a span of three years, were all affected by a neurological "condition or trauma" that led them to report flying triangles but show no other symptoms whatsoever.
And then "get better".

I'm not aware of a single report in the literature of a person reporting a flying triangle, and only a flying triangle, with no other neurological symptoms, due to neurological injury or illness.

The Belgian triangle flap wasn't caused by ETIs. And it wasn't caused by a mysterious neurological condition.

 

[John J.]

Maybe some UFO experiences, particularly those apparently of a more information-rich or "high strangeness" nature (close observation of a clearly anomalous "craft", sightings of presumed ET beings, "abductions") do reflect an "altered state of consciousness" (ASC) on the part of the witness- particularly if the witness was alone. If this is correct, I don't think most ASCs associated with UFOs are necessarily exotic, more likely sleep-related (including from sleep deprivation) or stress- (or excitement-) related, including from the stress (or excitement) of the experience itself.

This Metabunk thread, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/alien-dna-after-sexual-encounter.12070/, details a highly strange encounter with two, um, ladies, which I think is highly likely to be due to a parasomnia (sleep disorder).

I don't think it's a coincidence that many reports happen at night.

The author and "UFO investigator" Jenny Randles coined the term "Oz factor" for the sense of dislocation, "otherness" or eeriness, and poor estimations of time passing that some UFO reports attest to.

Jenny has had a long career in "traditional" UFOlogy. However, I think her beliefs show some change over time, from supporting the ETI hypothesis to a more nuanced or maybe multi-factorial view (though not sceptical, I don't think).
From being an early believer in the Rendlesham Forest "UFO" of 1980, Randles now says she doesn't think the US airmen saw anything unusual.

"Whilst some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen in Rendlesham Forest. We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."

Wikipedia, Rendlesham Forest incident, quoting Jenny Randles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incident


In "Time in the land of Oz", Fortean Times 432 June 2023, pg. 31, Randles says

For many years I have been seeking to understand why what I call the 'Oz Factor" seems important to close encounters. It is a consistently reported set of events... ...I suspect ultimately more significant than what kind of UFO was seen...

I think the latter part of the quote is an unusual (and perhaps brave) thing for a "UFOlogist" to say- I think it implies that Randles believes that her "Oz factor" might be a subjective (if sometimes shared, see below) experience or altered state of consciousness that plays a role in the generation of some "close encounters".

I think what this odd state of consciousness tells us about how close encounters lead down the yellow brick road is important.

In the ensuing article, Randles gives an example of a couple, travelling by car with their two children, experiencing an unusually quiet road, a "strange" mist, and ending up a few miles from where they intended.
I can give a few more details if anyone's interested, but not sure they're relevant and I think there's a good rational explanation.
The couple were anxious afterwards (and the woman, concerned she might be dead, later asked her mother if she was visible- an odd behaviour, I think).
Randles finds this interesting as an example of an "Oz factor" without a UFO sighting, implying that the experiencing of similar strange circumstances is the generator of some UFO reports. She adds,

"Ufologists are often happy to provide an answer: aliens engineered it."

Fortean Times, ibid.

She continues,

"The Oz Factor is really just an unusual state of consciousness... Indeed, I think the state of consciousness that people enter when experiencing the Oz Factor is the one thing we can with assurance believe to be real, as it is so consistently reported. But subsequently recalled events spun out of it owe at least something- perhaps a lot- to methods like hypnosis and the interpretation of associated events that may not be directly relevant to the experience but serve to enhance the oddity of the experience."

Having made this interesting claim- which is maybe worth thinking about, particularly regarding those rare high-strangeness events (reports of close observation of a landed craft, "abductions" etc.) Jenny seems to suddenly remember she's a UFOlogist, and tries to tie her "Oz Factor" in with some theory about time courtesy of Lee Cronin, Regus Professor of Chemistry at Glasgow University.

Regardless, I think it's interesting that a UFOlogist of many years standing thinks that circumstances (albeit possibly unusual circumstances whose characteristics are not yet really defined) might be the cause of high-strangeness UFO experiences.

Randles seems to think that her Oz Factor is caused by exterior (and maybe what we might describe as paranormal) forces,
but maybe some individuals, perhaps due to some interplay of environmental cues and personal circumstances, do (subjectively) experience some kind of "Oz Factor", a state in which they are more likely to perceive strange phenomena or indeed misinterpret "normal" perceptions as, or originating from, phenomena such as UFOs.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As I've said enough times to sound like a broken record and @JMartJr and others reenforced above: There is what someone saw, and there is the memory of what someone saw. They can be radically different, especially with the passage of time.

I do think another component is expectation. If one goes on a UFO hunting adventure at Mt. Shasta or Sedona there is an expectation that they will see a UFO. At least there is the hope that they will. That can lead to observing things in a different light. An example:

I was out goose hunting with a couple of my dad's old hunting buddies. These guys were in their '60s and '70s and had been hunting since they were 12 or so. They were extremely experienced waterfowl hunters who could tell a particular species of duck from 60+ yards or more in the morning twilight. They were trained observers.

Until 2-3 years of drought had ruined something they really enjoyed. The hunting area had no water, so no ducks. All they (we) could do was sit in a blind and hope to God a few stray geese would fly over. As even that became unlikely, I was amazed as they began to see the wrong birds in the sky as geese. Swans and to a lesser extent, Sand Hill Cranes can look like geese while flying, but these guys had taught me the differences. Differences they were overlooking and ignoring in the hope that a few geese would fly over.

They eventually realized their errors, but as were talking about birds flying overhead, they had the opportunity to see their erroneous observations. No swans were shot at.

There are so many things involved in a simple observation and then the memory of that observation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Cooincidently I was just reading up on the Farmington, NM Saucer invasion. I've spent time in Farmington because my sister lived there for years.

Cottonwood seeds doesn't seem like a good fit to me.

Number one: You see them every year.

Second reason is that in the only well done witness interview I can find the biggest "ship" was described as having an apparent size of a hand held out at arms length. Cottonwood seeds don't clump together like that. Even on the ground they don't clump together. If you've seen dandelion seeds... pretty much the same thing.

The best fit to me is ballooning spider silk. I should present my evidence in a seperate thread.

It's surpisingly difficult to find photos or videos of floating spider silk on the Internet.

Btw, we've already worked out here that the Stadio Artemio Franchi, Florence sighting was also caused by ballooning spider silk. Or rather James McGaha did.

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...rtemio-franchi-in-florence.11578/#post-245700

The dead give away:

"It is a fact that at the same time the UFOs were seen over Florence there was a strange, sticky substance falling from above. In English we call this 'angel hair'," says Pinotti.

"The only problem is after a short period of time it disintegrates." As a 10-year-old-boy he witnessed this phenomenon himself. "I remember, in broad daylight, seeing the roofs of the houses in Florence covered in this white substance for one hour and, like snow, it just evaporated.

"No-one knows what this strange substance has to do with UFOs."

It was worked out long ago what "Angel Hair" is. It's clumps of spider silk. The relationship between Angel Hair and UFOs is explicit. The UFOs are Angel Hair... aka spider silk.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm always mindful, despite my current skepticism of UFOs, that one of the MOD files on UFOs is my own report from January 31st 1977 ( which I cannot seem to track down ). To this day, I have never found a satisfactory explanation for it.....a spherical iridescent object hanging there in the brightening ( and cloudless, at the time ) pre-dawn sky, about half the apparent diameter of the Moon. It 'dissolved' away over about half an hour.

I don't now think it was aliens...probably some very rare atmospheric phenomenon. But I would love to get hold of the original MOD file to see whether my memory after 50 years corresponds with what I reported at the time. And contrary to what most might suspect, I think any 'embellishment' of the object was at the time...and my actual memory 50 years later is less dramatic. But has my becoming a skeptic in the intervening years led to a more accurate memory ?

The best fit might be nacreous clouds. Or one small one.

https://atoptics.co.uk/highsky/nacr1.htm

Nacreous clouds, sometimes called mother-of-pearl clouds, are rare but once seen are never forgotten. They are mostly visible within two hours after sunset or before dawn when they blaze unbelievably bright with vivid and slowly shifting iridescent colours. They are filmy sheets slowly curling and uncurling, stretching and contracting in the semi-dark sky. Compared with dark scudding low altitude clouds that might be present, nacreous clouds stand majestically in almost the same place - an indicator of their great height.

They need the very frigid regions of the lower stratosphere some 15 - 25 km (9 -16 mile) high and well above tropospheric clouds. They are so bright after sunset and before dawn because at those heights they are still sunlit.

They are seen mostly during winter at high latitudes like Scandinavia, Iceland, Alaska and Northern Canada. Sometimes, however, they occur as far south as England. They can be less rare downwind of mountain ranges. Elsewhere their appearance is often associated with severe tropospheric winds and storms.

 

[captancourgette]

Yes I saw that once (And took a lot of photos about 2005 in lower hutt, NZ) but it was in the middle of a winter day, so such phenomena are not always in the twilight hours ~41 degrees from the equator, It stuck around for 20 minutes or so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_iridescence
though what I saw was better than the pictures in the wiki article, it was more similar to the following

 

[Scaramanga]

The best fit might be nacreous clouds. Or one small one.

Except that would be to ignore the elements that don't fit. I'd seen nacreous clouds many times before. This particular thing was 3 dimensionally spherical...whereas I've not seen nacreous clouds appear as anything other than flat and lenticular. And a single nacreous cloud totally on its own in an otherwise totally clear southern sky ( which is how the object was even noticed...standing out starkly in the sky ) does not fit the general pattern either.

I should add that towards the end of viewing this object, two thin layers of cloud moved in from the northeast and moved right past the object as though it was stationary ( or very high up ).

Incidentally...this incident was a mere 4 days before the now infamous Broadford UFO.....and just an hour after a similar object was observed near Frankfurt in Germany ( according to the MUFON database ). Cue X Files music.

 

[Scaramanga]

I would say it ought to even be possible to determine the incidence of this....one of our more mathematically minded members might wish to apply their skills to that

Well....it was not as difficult working it out as I thought. In fact quite simple....

Take 3 lights...A, B, and C. Draw a circle whose circumference intersects all three, and a radius line from each light to centre of circle. Now, each light can either move 'left' or 'right' ( i.e counter-clockwise or clockwise ) relative to that radius line.

That means if light A is moving clockwise, there is a one in two chance that light B will also be moving clockwise, and a one in two chance that light C will also be moving clockwise. In other words, a one in four chance that all 3 lights will be moving clockwise or counter-clockwise together.

So, far from it being some rare phenomenon for 3 lights to appear to rotate around a centre point and give the illusion of a craft 'rotating', if the 3 lights are moving in any way.....sheer chance dictates that on one in four such sightings the 'craft' as a whole will rotate.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Except that would be to ignore the elements that don't fit. I'd seen nacreous clouds many times before. This particular thing was 3 dimensionally spherical...whereas I've not seen nacreous clouds appear as anything other than flat and lenticular. And a single nacreous cloud totally on its own in an otherwise totally clear southern sky ( which is how the object was even noticed...standing out starkly in the sky ) does not fit the general pattern either.

....a spherical iridescent object hanging there in the brightening ( and cloudless, at the time ) pre-dawn sky, about half the apparent diameter of the Moon. It 'dissolved' away over about half an hour.

Spherical or a disk? You were really able to see a 3D shape?

For example, doesn't the Moon appear as a disk? I've shown people Jupiter and the Galilean moons in a telescope and I've always struggle to explain that the even though they appear to be in a straight line, the real situation is 3D not 2D. And don't the stars look like they're all on the inside surface of a sphere? The point is that we really aren't set up to be able to tell 2D shapes from 3D, in this kind of situation.

The apparent size of the full Moon is an aspirin tablet held at arm's length. Were you really able to see the shape of something with an apparent size that small? Couldn't it have been irregular?

To take things to an extreme, Venus is never full but it always looks like a disk to the naked eye... even when it's really a thin crescent.

I should add that towards the end of viewing this object, two thin layers of cloud moved in from the northeast and moved right past the object as though it was stationary ( or very high up ).

That seems consistent with nacreous clouds.

 

[Duke]

It was worked out long ago what "Angel Hair" is. It's clumps of spider silk. The relationship between Angel Hair and UFOs is explicit. The UFOs are Angel Hair... aka spider silk.

Modern "chaff," a radar countermeasure used by military aircraft and warships, bears a striking resemblance to at least some reported Angel Hair.

Back several years ago, there were a series of incidents where weather radars picked up large radar returns. It was eventually determined it was chaff dropped from USAF aircraft.

So what was likely the culprit of this strange radar blob? Chaff, or to be more specific military chaff that is used to confuse radar-sensing missiles. Chaff is very thin strands of aluminum metalized glass fiber or plastic that are dropped from planes in order to confuse radars. Unfortunately, weather radar is also susceptible to the tricks of chaff and often appears as rain on the radar.

https://whnt.com/weather/valleywx-blog/strange-radar-blob-moves-across-state/amp/

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Chaff is called Angel Grass.

Modern chaff looks like this.

Wikipedia

... aluminium-coated glass fibres. These fibre "dipoles" are designed to remain airborne for as long as possible, having a typical diameter of 1 mil, or 0.025 mm, and a typical length of 0.3 inches (7.6 mm) to over 2 inches (51 mm). Newer "superfine" chaff has a typical diameter of 0.7 mils (0.018 mm).

Btw chaff dropped from B-29s was used by Japanese farmers in the last year of WWII to scare birds away from crops. They tied it to wire fences, tree branches and such and it flashed in the Sun. It's an ill wind...

 

[Scaramanga]

Spherical or a disk? You were really able to see a 3D shape? For example, doesn't the Moon appear as a disk?

The apparent size of the full Moon is an aspirin tablet held at arm's length. Were you really able to see the shape of something with an apparent size that small? Couldn't it have been irregular?

One has to consider the context. I was leaving home for work at around 7.20am....20 minutes or so before sunrise...and immediately on stepping outside I spotted this very striking object due south and 40 degrees or so elevation. It was the only object in that entire ( otherwise totally cloudless ) half of the sky. The object was spherical and translucent, and though I say 'iridescent' it was primarily pink-ish / purple in colour with what appeared to be orange bits around the middle. The edges were slightly fuzzy. It looked very strange indeed, not like anything I have ever seen before or since.

I don't think an object would not be discernable as a sphere...I've seen hot air balloons at that sort of size and they clearly are spheres.

I'd seen lots of nacreous clouds before....which is why I am reluctant to dismiss this as one. Bear in mind that this object sufficiently impressed me that I went to the police station and filed a UFO report ( I was surprised they had an official and quite well laid out document for that purpose ! ). I received the official MOD one line response...and the file is somewhere in the MOD files though their filing system is such a dog's dinner that it is impossible to work out which one.

In fact, although it is claimed that 'all' the MOD files have been released, those for early 1977 clearly haven't as I can find no trace of it ( and Nick Pope was really unhelpful in helping me find it ).

To my mind...to this day whatever it was remains 'unexplained'.....which I hasten to add does not mean it was aliens.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

.I've seen hot air balloons at that sort of size and they clearly are spheres.

They are clearly spheres because you know they're spheres.

This is a sphere?

No, it's not. It's a 2D photograph.

 

[Duke]

Chaff is called Angel Grass.

Btw chaff dropped from B-29s was used by Japanese farmers in the last year of WWII to scare birds away from crops. They draped it over wire fences, tree branches and such and it flasehd in the Sun.

Never heard "angel grass" to describe chaff.

The chaff dropped in WW2 looked very different from its current incarnation, more like strips of aluminum foil. As shown in the photo I posted previously, modern chaff looks more fiberous.

I'd not heard the Japanese/birds story, but the guy behind me ties those disposable aluminum pie pans onto bent metal coat hangers and sticks them in amongst his plants. He told me the combination of the noise/sun reflections keep some critters away.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Angel Grass is a name that arose from people finding it and not knowing what it was.

 

[Scaramanga]

They are clearly spheres because you know they're spheres.

This is a duck....it looks like a duck..and quacks like one...lets call it a duck.


Actually I think the inference with hot air balloons is the other way round to what you suggest. You don't see a 'balloon' and then infer that it is spherical...rather you see a spherical object and from that infer it is a balloon.

 

[Ann K]

Btw chaff dropped from B-29s was used by Japanese farmers in the last year of WWII to scare birds away from crops. They tied it to wire fences, tree branches and such and it flashed in the Sun. It's an ill wind...

We used to throw old Christmas trees up at the back of our woods, and the leftover tinsel (aluminized Mylar strips) was always in demand as a building supply. You could always see it glinting in birds' nests in the spring, so it didn't scare them off!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is a duck....it looks like a duck..and quacks like one...lets call it a duck.


Actually I think the inference with hot air balloons is the other way round to what you suggest. You don't see a 'balloon' and then infer that it is spherical...rather you see a spherical object and from that infer it is a balloon.

View attachment 60325

I have a question for you to reflect upon. Are you making an I know what I saw error?

 

[Scaramanga]

I have a question for you to reflect upon. Are you making an I know what I saw error?

No more so than you are making a you know what I saw error. I think that whilst one can question a person's interpretation of what they saw ( for example their UFO may be Venus ), I don't think one can know better than the witness what they actually saw in terms of the visual experience.

 

[Mendel]

They are clearly spheres because you know they're spheres.

This is a sphere?
View attachment 60324

No, it's not. It's a 2D photograph.

It's a photograph of a convex object, and the shading provides clear cues that is.

 

[JMartJr]

I don't think one can know better than the witness what they actually saw in terms of the visual experience.

The difficulty is, one can't KNOW what the witness saw at all unless there is good substantiating evidence. Given the fallibility of memory, even the witness can't really 100% know. And given that some people enjoy making up stories, one can't really know that a witness saw anything at all.

This is not to say that all witnesses are wrong, or that all are relating fiction. But some are, and I don't know of a handy metric for detecting the inaccurate or fictional stories.

 

[Scaramanga]

I have a question for you to reflect upon. Are you making an I know what I saw error?

No...the point I am making is the chain of inference. You don't see a 'balloon' and then conclude it is 'spherical'. Rather, it is the other way round. You see a roughly spherical object and because of that you conclude it is a balloon.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

The brain assumes the 3 lights are connected, and 'sees' a craft at whatever alignment the lights are at. If the lights start to appear more in a straight line, the brain assumes the 'craft' is becoming edge on....and so on. Whatever the 3 lights do will be converted into some orientation of 'triangular craft'.

I've long thought that this somewhat oversimplifies things. Just because your brain can and does actively arrange three points into triangles, it doesn't do it 100 percent of the time with every set of three dots it encounters. I think the relative position, motion (or lack thereof), distance, and angles between the points has a lot more impact than just being "three dots."

 

[Scaramanga]

I've long thought that this somewhat oversimplifies things. Just because your brain can and does actively arrange three points into triangles, it doesn't do it 100 percent of the time with every set of three dots it encounters. I think the relative position, motion (or lack thereof), distance, and angles between the points has a lot more impact than just being "three dots."

Three points of light are by definition a triangle. What else would they be ?

 

[John J.]

Three points of light are by definition a triangle. What else would they be ?

A line?

 

[PublicStranger]

One thing I can never get my head around is why super advanced anti gravity alien spacecraft would need lights of any kind. I mean I would have assumed they would have mastered night vision before they master gravity.

 

[Eburacum]

Three points of light are by definition a triangle. What else would they be ?

A line?

A line of three dots is a triangle seen from the side.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

No...the point I am making is the chain of inference. You don't see a 'balloon' and then conclude it is 'spherical'. Rather, it is the other way round. You see a roughly spherical object and because of that you conclude it is a balloon.

You're inventing a personal version of perception science based on casual speculation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm too busy and too lazy to go into a long detailed discussion.

What follows is a crippled outline with enough info for people to find more info on the subject:

Our optic nerves do not give our brain anywhere near enough data to produce what we "see" as if it were just an optical projection on the brain.

Human perception is an evolutionary solution to the problem of too little data with too little processing power.

The brain uses what little data it does get - and it is shockingly sparse... and "innate priors" (assumptions, which have been learned through prior experience) to produce an "imaginary" visual experience. What we see is produced by our brain moment by moment, and is mostly just a good guess. It's an entirely personal experience. It's in essence an artificial reality. The farther away you get from the fovea (deeper into peripheral vision) the less resolution there is and the less real data there is... and the more "imaginary" what we see is. In other words, what we see in our peripheral vision is almost entirely "imaginary."

Predictive processing - Neural systems perform probabilistic inference and computation on incoming sensory information which is shockingly sparse. Our brains construct a model based on learned innate priors. We have to learn how to see during a phase in early childhood when the brain is "plastic."

Adults who have had corrective surgery to correct physical flaws in the eye... surprisingly can't really see very well, because the brain was not trained to see during that time of brain plasticity.

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/c...oduction/psychophysics/prediction-expectation

Although it feels like we see the visual world as it objectively is, in fact our brains have to construct it. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that this process of inferring our visual surroundings is predictive: what we expect to see in the present context will guide what we actually see. In the video below is a rotating mask that illustrates this point. For half of the time we are presented with the mask from behind, so that it appears concave. However that is not what we see: we see a strange switch of direction, but the face remains convex. This illusion happens because our brain will not infer the extremely unlikely case of a convex face.

Prediction:

This 'predictive processing' account of perception has become increasingly powerful in explaining many of the observations about human experience and behaviour. This approach suggests that the expectations, or predictions, are what determines the contents of perception – not simply the 'bottom-up' processing of sensory signals. With a large body of evidence from animal studies supporting the view that neural systems are performing probabilistic inference and computation on incoming sensory information.

One aspect of this sub-groups research within the Sackler Centre focuses on sensory predictive processing and expectations and investigates its relationship to conscious perception.

In the past we have used motion-induced blindness illusion to induce a temporal blindness of a visual target. We found that providing predictive colour information of the target can facilitate its return to conscious perception, suggesting that there is a direct relationship between predictive processes and conscious access to visual information. In a recent study using EEG, we found that the human visual system is capable of learning complex luminance dynamics within the environment. We found that the visual system can track rapid non-periodic luminance sequences, even when the luminance values in a sequence are altered 160 times a second. When the luminance sequence was later repeated, the 'echo-like' neural response recorded from occipital sensors became stronger, suggesting both recognition and regularity learning of the sequences had occurred within the visual cortex. We also found that this tracking system was entirely unconscious, suggesting that predictive processes can exist without consciousness involvement.

Expectation:

In a recent study we investigated how this predictive process might occur. We measured electrical activity over the scalp, and looked at neural oscillations (thought to instantiate communication across brain areas) over occipital cortex. This region of the brain is specialized for vision. We found that the propensity to incorporate expectations into the construction of our visual world is not constant over time. Instead, it fluctuates or cycles approximately every 100ms, following the shape of these oscillations.

This result suggests that the extent to which the brain will use expectations in perception is shaped by the state of visual brain regions before we have even seen anything: sometimes the brain is 'more prepared' to base its inferences on sensory signals, while at others it is 'more prepared' to base its inferences on expectations. It might be that this preparedness reflects those expectations being communicated to visual regions from other parts of the brain. Alternatively, it might reflect a compensatory mechanism, whereby the visual regions recruit expectations for its processing more when it is in a 'suboptimal' state for processing sensory signals. In both cases, this work tells us that neuroscience theories attempting to explain how the brain uses expectations need to account for this finding that expectations are not available or used continuously, but rhythmically.

Over time - through experience gained from our foveal vision - our brain has been trained with "innate priors" - or assumptions. It uses these assumptions to begin the computational process of creating our visual experience.

These visual experiences can be created without sensory input - dreams and hallucinations.

This film was made was made in 1958.



It was already understood at that time that our visual experience is produced by our brain using innate priors. We should just see a trapezoid rotating. But we don't. Because, in this case, the assumption with which our brain starts its computation... is wrong.

Looking at a distant sphere... what's really happening in the eye? There's just a 2D image on the retina. To interpret it as a sphere the brain relies on cues. Innate priors - or as this article calls them - elementary features.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shadows-and-illusions/

The Basic Rules of Shading

Consider a simple circle with a gradient suggesting one side is illuminated and the other is in shadow (1). Such an illustration is usually seen as a sphere or ball lit from the left, although with a bit of effort you can see it as a cavity lit from the right. This demonstration uncovers the first rule of shape from shading: other things being equal, convexity is preferable. We may have this preference because the objects we encounter in nature are usually convex. A creature that has evolved on Venus, which has no solid objects, would not show this preference.

Now examine the illustration at the right (2), and you will notice something strange: when the top row is seen as spheres, there is a strong tendency to see the bottom row as cavities, and vice versa. This observation demonstrates the single-light-source rule, the assumption that in interpreting shaded images, the brain assumes that the entire scene is illuminated by a single light source. You never see the top and bottom rows as both convex and being illuminated from opposite directions. This particular bias makes sense, given that our planet has a single sun.


Next look at 3a. Notice that the disks that are light on top invariably look like spheres, whereas the ones that are light below look like cavities. This demonstrates the third principle: the brain assumes that, in addition to having only one light source, the source must be shining from above (again this is because the sun shines from above, not below). Scottish physicist Sir David Brewster noticed this overhead lighting bias more than 100 years ago when viewing cameos lit from different directions. Our multiple shaded disks amplify the effect considerably and strip the illusion down to its bare essentials.

Perception does not involve faithfully transmitting the retinal image to the visual areas of the brain. The process is more complex. Different attributes in the image—called elementary features—are extracted by neurons early in visual processing before activating a cascade of events that culminates in your final act of perception. Examples of such features include edges (especially their orientation), motion and color, all of which are extracted early—quite possibly in area 17, the first visual-processing area of the brain's cortex. More complex features such as facial expression, on the other hand, are computed much later in the process.


One characteristic of elementary features is the fact that they segregate clearly into different groups even when they are intermixed. Shading follows this pattern. Most people viewing 3a, for example, can effortlessly group the spheres and segregate them from the cavities. But the same cannot be said for 3b. This comparison suggests that shading—but not the mere variation of light intensity (known as luminance) across disks—is probably an elementary feature extracted early in the processing stream.

In the case of hot air balloons we've learned other innate priors.


But if you see an unknown object with a an apparent size of 1/4 of a degree, which is lit strangely... well the perception of it being a sphere is very unreliable... as convincing as that perception may seem.

All this is not a quibble. We are getting to the heart of the "I know what I saw" fallacy.

Yes, one knows what one saw. But one has to have an appreciation that what one sees is nothing more than a model. A personal experience. A controlled hallucination, as it is called by Anil Smith.

Just one example we've talked about here is the "how big and how distant" problem, involving unknown objects in a featureless sky.

Venus may be seen as an object as big as house a thousand yards away. People know what they saw. That IS what they SAW. But it ain't true, is it?

 

[Scaramanga]

You're inventing a personal version of perception science based on casual speculation.

No I'm just using pretty straightforward logic. Perception clearly has a complexity sequence. The first thing you perceive of any object is its shape....its motion...its colour, etc. That it is a balloon comes after that. One concludes that it is a balloon because of those prior factors. I mean how on earth could one ever conclude any object was a balloon without those prior factors ?

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Three points of light are by definition a triangle. What else would they be ?

But only if you affiliate them with each other (and also the whole "you need three points to define a line" thing, which a line is definitely not a triangle). It is this inherent affiliation that leads to causing the white space, for lack of a better term, to fill in to become the triangle object.

 

[Eburacum]

Two points define a line. Three points define a triangle. Every triangle in three-dimensional space can be rotated to form a straight line.

 

[Scaramanga]

But only if you affiliate them with each other

But that is precisely what people who report 'triangle UFOs' are doing. That is the entire context. I'm not doing the affiliating...the UFO 'witness' is. The ' three lights on triangular UFO' reports would not otherwise exist ! There does seem to be an awful lot of getting the cart before the horse on this thread. Of course not every 3 lights in the sky get interpreted as a triangle UFO....but when's the last time you saw a ' Three lights in sky weren't a triangle UFO' news headline ?

 

[Edward Current]

One thing I can never get my head around is why super advanced anti gravity alien spacecraft would need lights of any kind. I mean I would have assumed they would have mastered night vision before they master gravity.

Unless their anti-gravity tech requires emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I just tried Bard for the first time. Impressive. I can't see anything to complain about in this essay.
Prompt : Write me 6000-word essay on the V1 area of the occipital lobe.
I've put some words in bold.

Introduction
The V1 area of the occipital lobe is the primary visual cortex. It is responsible for processing the initial stages of visual information. V1 receives input from the retina, and it sends output to other areas of the brain that are involved in higher-level visual processing.
Anatomy
The V1 area is located in the occipital lobe, which is at the back of the brain. It is a thin layer of cortex that is folded into a series of ridges and valleys. The V1 area is also known as Brodmann area 17.
The V1 area is organized in a retinotopic map. This means that the neurons in V1 are arranged in a way that corresponds to the layout of the retina. The neurons at the top of V1 receive input from the top of the retina, and the neurons at the bottom of V1 receive input from the bottom of the retina.
Function
The V1 area is responsible for processing the initial stages of visual information. This includes detecting edges, lines, and shapes. V1 also plays a role in detecting motion and color.
The V1 area sends output to other areas of the brain that are involved in higher-level visual processing. These areas include the V2 area, the V4 area, and the inferior temporal cortex.
Damage to V1
Damage to the V1 area can cause blindness. However, the extent of the blindness will depend on the location and severity of the damage. If the damage is limited to a small area of V1, then the person may only experience partial blindness.
Disorders of V1
There are a number of disorders that can affect the V1 area. These include:

• Achromatopsia: This is a rare disorder that causes people to see the world in black and white. It is caused by damage to the V1 area that affects the processing of color information.
• Hemianopia: This is a condition in which people lose vision in half of their visual field. It is caused by damage to the V1 area on one side of the brain.
• Parietal lobe syndrome: This is a condition that is caused by damage to the parietal lobe, which is located next to the occipital lobe. Parietal lobe syndrome can cause a variety of visual problems, including neglect, simultagnosia, and apraxia.

Conclusion
The V1 area is a critical part of the visual system. It is responsible for processing the initial stages of visual information, and it sends output to other areas of the brain that are involved in higher-level visual processing. Damage to the V1 area can cause blindness or other visual problems.
References

• Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1(1), 1-47.
• Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1959). Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat's striate cortex. Journal of Physiology, 148(3), 574-591.
• Livingstone, M. S., & Hubel, D. H. (1988). Segregation of form, color, and depth in the monkey's visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 8(10), 2401-2411.
• Zeki, S. (1978). Functional specialization in the visual cortex of the rhesus monkey. Nature, 274(5669), 423-428.

Sources

info
www.researchgate.net/publication/331717561_Teeth_and_Landmarks_Detection_and_Classification_Based_on_Deep_Neural_Networks

Another prompt: write me a 6,000 word essay on the false contour illusion and the v1 area of the occipital lobe

I edited out some introductory material.

The Relationship Between the False Contour Illusion and the V1 Area

The false contour illusion is thought to be caused by the way that the V1 area processes visual information. The V1 area is sensitive to edges and lines, and it uses this information to create a map of the visual world.

When we see a hollow-shaded shape, the V1 area creates a map of the shape, including the interior of the shape. However, the interior of the shape is not actually there, so the V1 area creates an illusion of a raised shape.

The false contour illusion can also be caused by the way that the V1 area interprets interposition. When we see two shapes that are partially overlapping, the V1 area creates a map of the shapes, including the parts of the shapes that are obscured by the other shape.

However, the parts of the shapes that are obscured are not actually there, so the V1 area creates an illusion of depth.

Other Factors That May Contribute to the False Contour Illusion

In addition to the V1 area, there are a number of other factors that may contribute to the false contour illusion. These factors include:

• The Gestalt principles of perception: The Gestalt principles of perception are a set of rules that govern how we perceive the world around us. These principles include principles such as similarity, proximity, and closure.
• The relative brightness of the shapes: The relative brightness of the shapes can also affect the false contour illusion. If the shaded shape is brighter than the non-shaded shape, then the illusion will be stronger.
• The amount of shading: The amount of shading can also affect the false contour illusion. If the shading is more pronounced, then the illusion will be stronger.

Conclusion

The false contour illusion is a visual illusion that is caused by the way that our brains process visual information. The V1 area of the occipital lobe plays a role in this illusion, but there are other factors that can also contribute to it.

The false contour illusion is a fascinating example of how our brains can sometimes be fooled by our senses. It is also a reminder that our perception of the world around us is not always accurate.

Another prompt: write me a 6,000 word essay on the homunculus fallacy of human vision versus the way vision is actually processed by the human brain

Introduction
The homunculus fallacy is a problem that arises in the theory of vision. It is the idea that there is a small person inside the brain who sees the images that are projected onto the retina. This idea is flawed because it assumes that the brain simply receives and interprets these images, like a movie projector.
In reality, vision is a much more complex process. The brain does not simply receive images from the retina; it actively constructs a representation of the world around us. This representation is based on a variety of factors, including the input from the retina, but also the brain's own expectations and memories.
In this essay, I will discuss the homunculus fallacy and the way that vision is actually processed by the human brain. I will also discuss some of the implications of the homunculus fallacy for our understanding of consciousness.
The Homunculus Fallacy
The homunculus fallacy is a fallacy of composition. It is the idea that if you take a small part of something and magnify it, you will get the whole thing. In the case of vision, this would mean that if you magnified the image that is projected onto the retina, you would see a small person who is seeing the world.
This idea is flawed because it assumes that the brain simply receives and interprets these images, like a movie projector. However, the brain does not work this way. The brain is not a passive receiver of images; it actively constructs a representation of the world around us.
The Way Vision is Actually Processed by the Human Brain
The way that vision is actually processed by the human brain is much more complex than the homunculus fallacy would suggest. The process of vision can be divided into three main stages:

1. Reception: The first stage is the reception of light by the retina. The retina is a layer of tissue at the back of the eye that contains photoreceptor cells. These cells convert light into electrical signals that are sent to the brain.
2. Processing: The second stage is the processing of these electrical signals by the brain. The brain's visual cortex is responsible for processing these signals and creating a representation of the world around us.
3. Interpretation: The third stage is the interpretation of this representation by the brain. The brain uses this representation to understand the world around us and to interact with it.

The Implications of the Homunculus Fallacy
The homunculus fallacy has a number of implications for our understanding of consciousness. First, it suggests that consciousness is not simply a matter of receiving and interpreting images. Consciousness is a much more active process that involves the brain actively constructing a representation of the world around us.
Second, the homunculus fallacy suggests that consciousness is not localized in a single part of the brain. The process of vision involves a complex network of neurons throughout the brain. There is no single "homunculus" who is responsible for seeing the world.
Conclusion
The homunculus fallacy is a flawed idea that has been used to explain vision. In reality, vision is a much more complex process that involves the brain actively constructing a representation of the world around us. The homunculus fallacy has a number of implications for our understanding of consciousness, suggesting that consciousness is not simply a matter of receiving and interpreting images, and that it is not localized in a single part of the brain.

 

[PublicStranger]

Unless their anti-gravity tech requires emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum!

They use lights to obstruct photography so all we can capture when we try to photograph saucers is a blob of light... silly! I thought you knew that!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well, I'm impressed.

write me a 6000 word essay on why a ufo witness would be overconfident in the accuracy of his perceived visual experience

Introduction

Unidentified flying objects (UFOs) are a topic of fascination and speculation for many people. Some people believe that UFOs are evidence of alien visitation, while others believe that they are simply natural phenomena that have been misinterpreted.

There are a number of reasons why a UFO witness might be overconfident in the accuracy of their perceived visual experience. These reasons include:

• The power of suggestion: When people are told that they are about to see a UFO, they are more likely to see one, even if it is not there. This is because the power of suggestion can lead people to see what they expect to see.
• Confirmation bias: People tend to interpret ambiguous or inconclusive evidence in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. This means that if a UFO witness believes that UFOs are real, they are more likely to interpret their visual experience as evidence of a UFO, even if it is not.
• The availability heuristic: The availability heuristic is a cognitive bias that leads people to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily recalled. This means that if a UFO witness has recently seen a news report about a UFO sighting, they are more likely to remember that report and to believe that they have seen a UFO themselves.
• The desire to believe: Some people have a strong desire to believe in UFOs. This desire can lead people to interpret their visual experiences in a way that supports their belief, even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief.

The Power of Suggestion

The power of suggestion is a well-known psychological phenomenon. It refers to the fact that people are more likely to see what they expect to see. This is because our brains are constantly trying to make sense of the world around us, and we often fill in the gaps with our own expectations.

In the context of UFO sightings, the power of suggestion can lead people to see a UFO even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief. For example, if a person is told that they are about to see a UFO, they are more likely to see one, even if it is not there. This is because the person's expectations have been primed, and their brain is more likely to interpret ambiguous or inconclusive evidence as a UFO.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is another cognitive bias that can lead people to be overconfident in the accuracy of their perceived visual experiences. Confirmation bias refers to the tendency for people to interpret ambiguous or inconclusive evidence in a way that confirms their existing beliefs.

In the context of UFO sightings, confirmation bias can lead people to believe that they have seen a UFO even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief. This is because people tend to remember information that confirms their beliefs and to forget information that contradicts their beliefs.

For example, if a person believes that UFOs are real, they are more likely to remember news reports about UFO sightings and to forget news reports about debunkings of UFO sightings. This selective memory can lead people to believe that they have seen a UFO even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief.

The Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic is another cognitive bias that can lead people to be overconfident in the accuracy of their perceived visual experiences. The availability heuristic refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily recalled.

In the context of UFO sightings, the availability heuristic can lead people to believe that they have seen a UFO even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief. This is because people are more likely to remember recent news reports about UFO sightings than they are to remember news reports about debunkings of UFO sightings. This selective memory can lead people to believe that they have seen a UFO even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief.

The Desire to Believe

Some people have a strong desire to believe in UFOs. This desire can lead people to interpret their visual experiences in a way that supports their belief, even if there is no objective evidence to support their belief.

For example, a person who has a strong desire to believe in UFOs may be more likely to see a UFO in a cloud or in a starry sky. This is because the person's desire to believe can lead them to interpret ambiguous or inconclusive evidence as a UFO.

Conclusion

There are a number of reasons why a UFO witness might be overconfident in the accuracy of their perceived visual experience. These reasons include the power of suggestion, confirmation bias, the availability heuristic, and the desire to believe.

It is important to be aware of these cognitive biases when evaluating UFO sightings. While some UFO sightings may be genuine, it is also possible that many of them are the result of these biases.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Controlled Hallucination Theory of Perception and Consciousness

The controlled hallucination theory of perception and consciousness is a theory that proposes that our experience of the world is not a direct representation of reality, but rather a controlled hallucination. This means that our brains are constantly creating and updating a model of the world around us, based on our past experiences, expectations, and desires.

The theory was first proposed by Anil Seth, a neuroscientist at the University of Sussex. Seth argues that our brains are essentially predictive machines. They are constantly trying to predict what will happen next, based on what has happened in the past. This prediction process is what allows us to perceive the world as a stable and coherent reality, even though the world is constantly changing.

The controlled hallucination theory has a number of implications for our understanding of perception and consciousness. First, it suggests that our experience of the world is not entirely objective. Our brains are constantly filtering and interpreting sensory information, and this filtering process is influenced by our past experiences, expectations, and desires.

Second, the controlled hallucination theory suggests that consciousness is not a passive process. Our brains are actively creating our experience of the world, and we can influence this process through our thoughts, beliefs, and expectations.

The controlled hallucination theory is a relatively new theory, and it is still under development. However, it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of perception and consciousness. By understanding how our brains create our experience of the world, we can gain a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.

Evidence for the Controlled Hallucination Theory

There is a growing body of evidence that supports the controlled hallucination theory of perception and consciousness. For example, studies have shown that our brains are constantly filling in the gaps in our sensory information. When we look at a partially obscured object, our brains will fill in the missing parts of the object, even though those parts are not actually there.

Another line of evidence comes from studies of people with synesthesia. Synesthesia is a condition in which people experience one sense in response to another sense. For example, some people with synesthesia might see colors when they hear music. This suggests that our brains are not simply receiving and interpreting sensory information, but that they are also actively creating our experience of the world.

Implications of the Controlled Hallucination Theory

The controlled hallucination theory has a number of implications for our understanding of perception and consciousness. First, it suggests that our experience of the world is not entirely objective. Our brains are constantly filtering and interpreting sensory information, and this filtering process is influenced by our past experiences, expectations, and desires.

Second, the controlled hallucination theory suggests that consciousness is not a passive process. Our brains are actively creating our experience of the world, and we can influence this process through our thoughts, beliefs, and expectations.

This has a number of implications for the way we think about ourselves and our place in the world. For example, it suggests that we are not simply passive observers of the world, but that we are actively shaping our own experience of it. It also suggests that we have more control over our own consciousness than we might have thought.

Future Directions

The controlled hallucination theory is a relatively new theory, and there is still much that we do not know about it. However, it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of perception and consciousness. By understanding how our brains create our experience of the world, we can gain a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.

Some of the future directions of research in this area include:

• Understanding the neural mechanisms of the controlled hallucination theory. What are the specific brain regions and processes that are involved in creating our experience of the world?
• Testing the controlled hallucination theory in other species. Do other animals also experience the world as a controlled hallucination?
• Developing new therapies for neurological disorders. Could the controlled hallucination theory be used to develop new therapies for neurological disorders such as schizophrenia and autism?

The controlled hallucination theory is a fascinating and promising new theory of perception and consciousness. It has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. I am excited to see how this theory develops in the years to come.

This certainly makes things easier. But you do have to have a knowledge base to write the prompts.