Blind people seeing…

Advertisements
Photo by Steve Johnson from Pexels

Researchers presented 20 blind and 20 sighted adults with animal names and asked participants to: order animals by size and height; sort animals into groups based on shape, skin texture and color; pick which animal out of a group is unlike the others in shape, and choose from various texture options (“Does a hippo have feathers, fur, skin or scales?”).

Overall, blind and sighted participants organized animals in similar ways and agreed on which physical features were most likely to be observed within animal groups. Contrary to the idea that blind people learn about animal appearance from sighted people’s descriptions of what animals look like, blind and sighted participants disagreed most about the dimension that was easiest for sighted people to describe in words: animal color. Sighted participants created groups for white, pink, black, black and white, brown and grey animals, and they easily labeled these groups, but had a hard time verbally describing their shape groupings. Blind people created similar shape groups to the sighted but did not make consistent color groups.

The researchers found that to deduce what animals looked like, blind people relied on similar biological classifications, but such inference works less well for color because many very different animals are white (e.g., swans, polar bears and sheep).

The main conclusion is that blind people develop rich and accurate ideas about appearance based on inference. ”What the findings show is that linguistic communication can give us rich and accurate knowledge, even knowledge that at first glance seems ‘visual.'” says Marina Bedny, Assistant Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Johns Hopkins and another author on the paper. (1)

What you think is what you see.

What you hear is what you think.

The same way that what you see is what you think.

Look too much at the cosmos and you will stop listening.

Listen carefully and you will stop seeing.

There is balance is the cosmos.

And this balance can only be sensed by those who have no balance.

There is chaos in the world.

And this chaos can only be seen by those who see no order anywhere.

On the edges of existence, people standing still.

In the center of being, blind people dancing…

White bears.

White swans.

White snow.

Don’t you see? Everything is black!

Deep in the abyss… Do you feel wet?

Advertisements
Photo by Karol Wiśniewski from Pexels

Does [a:] as in ‘baa’ sound greener or more red? And is [i:] as in ‘beet’ light or dark in color? Even though we perceive speech and color are perceived with different sensory organs, nearly everyone has an idea about what colors and vowels fit with each other. And a large number of us have a particular system for doing so. (1)

All senses are connected.

And at the end, they whisper the same thing…

Everything is One.

All interconnected.

So that there is no point in sensing anything no more…

Wet feet.

Don’t stand in the shore.

Dive deep.

And deep in the abyss.

You will not feel wet anymore…

Filling in memories…

Advertisements
Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

When looking at a picture of a sunny day at the beach, we can almost smell the scent of sun screen. Our brain often completes memories and automatically brings back to mind the different elements of the original experience. A new study now reveals the underlying mechanisms of this auto-complete function.

The researchers made an exciting discovery: During memory recall, neurons in the hippocampus fire strongly. Additionally, neurons in the entorhinal cortex began to fire in parallel to the hippocampus. According to one researcher “The act of remembering put neurons in a state that strongly resembles their activation during initial learning.” (1)

We know what we should see.

And we see it.

We know what we should smell.

And we smell it.

But we know nothing…

And yet…

What a lovely rose…

Dipped in the ocean of the moonlight.

Can you feel the breeze?

Isn’t it strange that you don’t miss the warmth of the sun?

Language. Thought. Time. Dasein.

Advertisements
Photo by Maria Orlova from Pexels

The relationship between language and thought is controversial. One hypothesis is that language fosters habits of processing information that are retained even in non-linguistic domains.

Languages, for instance, vary in their branching direction. In typical right-branching (RB) languages, like Italian, the head of the sentence usually comes first, followed by a sequence of modifiers that provide additional information about the head (e.g. “the man who was sitting at the bus stop”). In contrast, in left-branching (LB) languages, like Japanese, modifiers generally precede heads (e.g. “who was sitting at the bus stop, the man”). In RB languages, speakers could process information incrementally, given that heads are presented first and modifiers rarely affect previous parsing decisions. In contrast, LB structures can be highly ambiguous until the end, because initial modifiers often acquire a clear meaning only after the head has been parsed. Therefore, LB speakers may need to retain initial modifiers in working memory until the head is encountered to comprehend the sentence.

Studies show that the link between language and thought might not be just confined to conceptual representations and semantic biases, but rather extend to syntax and its role in our way of processing sequential information or in the way the working memory of speakers of languages with mixed branching or free word order works. “[…] left-branching speakers were better at remembering initial stimuli across verbal and non-verbal working memory tasks, probably because real-time sentence comprehension heavily relies on retaining initial information in LB languages, but not in RB languages”, says Alejandro Sanchéz Amaro, from the Department of Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego. (1)

Thinking in a sequence based on your language.

Languages based on the way you think.

A cosmos structured in the way you see.

People seeing based on how their brain is structured.

In a universe where things can go either right or left, there is only one correct way to go… (Nowhere!) In a cosmos where thinking can be done in various ways, there is only one way to think… (Don’t think!)

Listen to the forest whispering in your ear…

Watch the dim light of existence cast shadows under the light…

Listen to the silence between the words…

There is a structure in the cosmos. And there is chaos in this structure. There is logos governing the universe. And inside logos, the deep darkness of stillness. Any structure imposes structures. Any way of thinking destroys other ways, equally possible and correct.

There is a unity in the clatter of phenomena.

You cannot see this unity from left and go right. Neither if you observe from right to left. You cannot know everything if you already know things. You cannot understand it all if you start by claiming that you understand something.

This unity you can only watch by watching everything.

And the only way to do that, is by watching nothing…

Is the man sitting at the bus?

Search inside…

What is a man?

And you will be astonished by the lack of any plausible answer…

Are you being looked at? Let ME tell you!

Advertisements
Photo by Spiros Kakos from Pexels

In science, the “Mona Lisa Effect” refers to the impression that the eyes of the person portrayed in an image seem to follow the viewer as they move in front of the picture. Two researchers from the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) at Bielefeld University demonstrate that this effect does not occur with Leonardo da Vinci’s world-famous painting “Mona Lisa” – debunking a scientific legend.

People can feel like they’re being looked at from both photographs and paintings — if the person portrayed looks straight ahead out of the image, that is, at a gaze angle of 0 degrees,” explains Horstmann. “With a slightly sideward glance, you may still feel as if you were being looked at.” Researchers explain. “Curiously enough, we don’t have to stand right in front of the image in order to have the impression of being looked at.”

In order to test this observation, Horstmann and Loth had 24 study participants look at the Mona Lisa on a computer screen and assess the direction of her gaze. The participants sat in front of the monitor. A simple folding ruler was positioned between them and the screen at several distances. The participants indicated where Mona Lisa’s gaze met the ruler. In order to test whether individual features of Mona Lisa’s face influenced the viewers’ perception of her gaze, the researchers used 15 different sections from the portrait. Each image was shown three times in random order while also changing the distance of the ruler from the monitor. Almost every single measurement indicated that the Mona gaze is not straight on but to the viewer’s right-hand side. “Thus, it is clear that the term “Mona Lisa Effect” is nothing but a misnomer. It illustrates the strong desire to be looked at and to be someone else’s centre of attention – to be relevant to someone, even if you don’t know the person at all.” (1)

What a totally misguided result.

Concluding that something is not there even though… it is!

Concluding that they are not seen even though they feel it!

Trying to determine whether you are being looked at.

Not based on what you sense.

But on what others say about what you should sense.

That is the problem of science: Trying to make sense of the cosmos without being able to sense the cosmos. Trying to find out about which result best fits the conclusions you want to make, while being based on axioms which dictate those results. Trying to determine what the cosmos looks like without being ready to just accept it as it is…

Look at the most detailed research.

And ask the researchers…

Do you ever stand in the cold?

Do you ever sing in the rain?

And in their silence or their laughter, you will listen…

Of a kid crying…