Nothing is more romantic than curling up in front of a fire with your loved one on Valentine’s Day, as you lovingly whisper, “chromostereopsis.” Okay, maybe it’s not as passionate as a sonnet—unless you are a vision scientist....[More]
Pop! Goes My Heart
Nothing is more romantic than curling up in front of a fire with your loved one on Valentine’s Day, as you lovingly whisper, “chromostereopsis.” Okay, maybe it’s not as passionate as a sonnet—unless you are a vision scientist. Look at the red and blue hearts and examine their depth with respect to the background. Most people find that the red heart pops in front of the blue background whereas the blue heart sinks beneath the red background. This illusion comes about because our eyes’ lenses refract blue light more than red. This phenomenon is called a chromatic aberration; another example of this effect is seeing a rainbow when you shine white light through a prism. When both eyes view the red and blue images simultaneously, the cornea and lens of the eyes refract different amounts of the colors, which results in their systematic and symmetric binocular mislocalization. The brain deals with this sensory aberration by imagining depth—the red heart is in front of the blue background and vice versa—even though none actually exists.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Akiyoshi Kitaoka
Illusions That Move the Heart
Your wandering eyes pull at your lover’s heartstrings. In this illusion, the heart appears to move and even pulsate as you look around the image....[More]
Illusions That Move the Heart
Your wandering eyes pull at your lover’s heartstrings. In this illusion, the heart appears to move and even pulsate as you look around the image. When your eyes move, they shift the retinal images of the white/black edges in the pattern, activating the motion-sensitive neurons in your visual cortex. This neural activation leads to the perception of illusory motion. Note that if you focus your gaze on a single point, the illusory motion slows or stops.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Notice that the yellow fields inside of the heart appear paler than the fields forming the contour of the heart, which appear to be a darker shade of yellow/orange....[More]
Illusory Neon Heart
Notice that the yellow fields inside of the heart appear paler than the fields forming the contour of the heart, which appear to be a darker shade of yellow/orange. Right? Wrong. Actually, all of the yellow fields in the figure are identical. Any differences that you see are all in your mind. This effect is called “neon color spreading,” because it resembles the effect of the light spreading from a neon lamp. The neural underpinnings of this effect are not yet understood.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
@ G. Sarcone; http://www.archimedes-lab.org/Gallery/new_optical_illusions/pages/138-Neon_heart_COL.html
Is Love an Illusion?
Spanish essayist Miguel de Unamuno said, “Love is the child of illusion and the parent of disillusion.” Is this view cynical or biologically based?...[More]
Is Love an Illusion?
Spanish essayist Miguel de Unamuno said, “Love is the child of illusion and the parent of disillusion.” Is this view cynical or biologically based? This series on the neuroscience of illusions highlights that illusions are, by definition, mismatches between physical reality and perception. Love, like all emotions, has no external physical reality: it may be driven by neural events, but it is nevertheless a purely subjective experience. So, too, is the wounded heart we have drawn in this slide. Where the arrow enters and exits the heart there is no heart whatsoever, except for how the arrow itself defines the edges of the imagined heart.
This effect is called an "illusory contour.” We perceive the shape of the heart only because our brains impose a shape on to a very sparse field of data. Neuroscientist Rudiger von der Heydt, of Johns Hopkins University, has shown that illusory contours are processed in neurons within visual brain area called V2. The illusory heart even looks slightly whiter than the background, although it is actually the same shade. Much of our day-to-day experience is made up of analogous feats of filling in the blanks, as we take what we know about the world and use it to imagine what we don’t.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Stephen Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde
Love and Amor
Here we see that love and amor are two sides of the same ambiguous object. This sculpture represents an “ambigram.” Judith Bagai, editor of The Enigma , the official journal of The National Puzzlers' League, coined the term by contracting the words "ambiguous" and "anagram" (the original ambigrams were represented by the same word in both directions)....[More]
Love and Amor
Here we see that love and amor are two sides of the same ambiguous object. This sculpture represents an “ambigram.” Judith Bagai, editor of The Enigma, the official journal of The National Puzzlers' League, coined the term by contracting the words "ambiguous" and "anagram" (the original ambigrams were represented by the same word in both directions).
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
www.moillusions.com
Love and Hate
Even more ambivalent is this mirror-symmetric ambigram of love and hate. Talk about mixed feeling—we hope she brings a mirror on her Valentine’s Day date....[More]
Ambiguity and camouflage both make it difficult to understand what you are seeing. In this painting by Jim Warren, seven hearts are hidden in the romantic scenery.
“Yuan yang" is a typical Hong Kong beverage mix of tea and coffee, and also a symbol of marriage and love. Sculptor Tsang Cheung-shing has united both concepts in a beautiful ceramic work, in which tea and coffee poured from two stylish cups meet and kiss each other....[More]
For Coffee and Tea Lovers
“Yuan yang" is a typical Hong Kong beverage mix of tea and coffee, and also a symbol of marriage and love. Sculptor Tsang Cheung-shing has united both concepts in a beautiful ceramic work, in which tea and coffee poured from two stylish cups meet and kiss each other.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
www.moillusions.com
Love Is All Around
Romance is not just a concept for humans and voles. This slide shows that love, and illusions, surround us all.
[Link to this slide] Lola Lee (for ring with heart); http://www.flickr.com/photos/coralpink/sets/72157600276407192/
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
"love (as with every other emotion we feel) is not rooted in the heart, but in the brain."
We are spiritual beings having a physical/material experience called life. All of our life experience and all of our response to this experience is rooted in our physical body, our physical self, and it is then sensed and responded to by our emotional and intellectual selves - in that chronological order - with our emotional and intellectual responses actually being in response to our physical responses.
There are some extremely rare examples of people who have lost their sense of proprioception (Ian Waterman being one). It seems pretty clear that such unfortunate people are, as a result of their condition, unable to experience "normal" emotional and intellectual responses to many situations because they are unaware of their physical response which means the usual kind of input that should be available to their emotional and intellectual selves is lacking. This in spite of the fact that their brains seem to be operating "normally."
As the Sufi teacher Hazrat Inayat Khan said, the mind is the surface of the heart and the heart is the depth of the mind. Each has its own way of knowing and understanding. Although the brain is certainly intimately involved in this process, it is only a part of the mechanism for processing and remembering information and for producing responses.
Love is an experience of togetherness, of oneness, of unity. It is experienced physically, emotionally and intellectually. It is vary real. And it is most strongly sensed in our hearts. But our spiritual heart is not our physical heart. Instead, it is more appropriately called our heart center or heart chakra. It is an energetic "body" that is larger than the physical body. It pulses in rhythm with the physical heart. It radiates and senses electromagnetic energy which allows it to intermingle and interact with the energetic (magnetic, light) bodies of other beings.
The physical information we sense through visual clues, touch, smell, taste, sound are very strong and we have learned to try to rely on these to such an extent that they tend to drown out many of the energetic clues available to us. Yet, when we speak of characteristics such as a magnetic personality or someone with good or bad vibes, what is really being referred to is a sense of someone’s energetic body. Although we can feel the energy of another very strongly, we have learned to pay more attention to the physical clues instead.
The good news is that we can learn to expand our awareness!
We are physical beings who, for some "unfathomable" reason, want to think/believe were somehow "endowed" with "spirutuality" (whatever that might mean).
Unfortunately for some, we really are nothing but the sum total of the electro-chemical processes taking place within our bodies (including our brains). Consciousness is just a by-product of these processes.
Let's please not dilute the issue with "spirituality" and the such..
Pluto, I'm stunned by your logic--sure, we're physical beings, you've got that down pat, but how do you make the leaping assumption that we have to be one of the two, i.e. physical vs spiritual? How do you imply that just because we're physical, we must not be spiritual? And as far as that 'consciousness just being a byproduct of biochemical processes' shtick, are all things incorporating biochemical processes 'conscious'? like trees and carrots ? or cells in a lab? I know people like you think there's no empirical evidence for spirituality (and here I'm blatantly disregarding the entire works of several prominent nativitist psychologists, just for the sake of argument) but there's really no evidence to the contrary either, so why do you insist on closing the lid on the possibility? Considering spirituality for what it is does not mean you're doing so for 'comfort' or hope..several people might be, but several others are genuninely evaluating it as a legitimate and influential part of our selves--an extension beyond the obvious of the biochemical. Even if you don't think you're any different from a brocolli sprout, you really need to stop diluting a rational argument process with your "fashionably skeptic" arm-chair psychology.
An "illusion" is defined as " a deceptive appearance or impression"or a "thing that is or is likely to be interpreted wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses" [according to the dictionary in my Macbook computer] If we want to settle the question of whether love is an illusion or not we would need a "scientific definition " of "love".
In reality "love" is what people feel or claim to feel for their spouses children parents and so on.In principle it is possible to reduce "love" to biochemical reactions in a certain sector of the brain and hence to test whether lovers who claim to love each other also feel what they claim to feel
However saying that the love that people feel is/is not an illusion complicates things further.We only know that something is an illusion when it is tested against another reality. If "love" is an illusion what is the reality against which it is tested ? Given that "love" is also tied up with many other standards or expectations in given societies [duty, honour , or indeed "culture"], what is the "social reality " used to benchmark "love" and come to the conclusion that it is or is not an illusion.
My view is that the question of whether the "love" that people "feel" or "claim to feel" is real or illusory is intrinsically nonsensical.
Certainly, one may say these feelings that are experienced are nothing more than the "illusion" of biochemical processes working in conjunction with our social interactions.
Analogously, one can also argue that all complex organisms are nothing more than the "illusion" of billions of single celled organisms working in conjunction with one another to form what we define as a "single" organism.
So should we be saying "we" or "I"?
On top(or below) of that we can toss in the "illusion" that subatomic particles create atomic particles, which in turn generate chemical "illusions", those chemical illusions creating molecular ones and so on...anyone catch my drift here?
As far as I, excuse us, we am concerned all information concerning the nature of our perceived reality is a fully legitimate experience of the observer or shall we more accurately say active participant(s).
"Democritus introduces the intellect having an argument with the senses about what is 'real'. The intellect says; 'Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void.' To which the senses retort; 'Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.' " -Erwin Schrodinger
In addition I am inclined to agree with thanda1's comment.
First of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll come to that in due time'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes - whereas there is a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly just the combined action of mainly two hormones: oxytocin and vasopressin (among others..).
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
But the main point here is, what exactly is 'spirituality'?
First of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll get there in due time!'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes, but rather a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly the combined action of a number of hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin being the main ones.
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
And, by the way, what exactly is spirituality? How do you define it?
First of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll get there in due time!'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes, but rather a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly the combined action of a number of hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin being the main ones.
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
And, by the way, what exactly is spirituality? How do you define it?
In the first example the red heart stands out because the red color is lighter in value than the blue color, not because of any difference in hue. Squint your eyes and you will see that the blue depicted is almost as dark as the black. If the red and blue colors were adjusted to the same light/dark value neither would "come forward" or recede in relation to the other. Value (sometimes called tonality) is a quality distinct from hue; red is not inherently lighter than blue.
If we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
If we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
If we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
I would like to get some more input regarding vision. I wear relatively weak glasses ONLY for reading smaller print. In slide 1, I see the opposite with my glasses on--the blue heart pops out and the red is recessed. In slide 2, the perception of movement is greater with the glasses on. In slide 3, I only perceive the darkened aura at a distance without the glasses. In slide 4, without glasses the shape of the heart is more defined and in 3D.
My point is, are these "illusions" simply a matter of focus? Shouldn't the cones (or is it the rods..sorry, not my specialty) perceive color the same whether or not the focus is perfect? As I said, my glasses are only a factor of 2, only used for reading, and I can still see the golf ball land 300 yards away. My vision before 40 was better than normal.
On the other subject...are ther any chemical or brain wave differences concerning my love for my child and my love for my wife? There must be common patterns and reactions, but to me they are very distinct feelings.
While not being a neurologist, or anywhere near, my thoughts on the subject..
I believe they are part & parcel of the same mechanism, for the same purpose (continuation of the species). But:
The 'love' one feels for one's child is more ingrained in one's genes - as a mechanism to safeguard and/or guarantee the well-being of one's progency (after all, this is what nature & natural selection is all about: once you are over the mate selection hurdle, the next step is to make sure that your offspring survives to join the gene pool) and has nothing to do with 'amorous' love. I believe the hormone oxytocin plays a crucial role here.
The 'love' one feels for another human being, while again being a mechanism of nature for the same purpose (to maximize the survival chances of the offspring, by affecting long-term bonding between partners), is more short-term. Once the offspring joins the fray, the need for protection and hence, "amorous love', will diminish (human society is replete with examples of this..).
I believe this second kind of love is (almost) unique to the human animal, since the human offspring needs a much longer period of caring-for than the offspring of other animals and the need for pair-bonding is much more pronounced and crucial.
Hi Pluto...I see how you distinguish "amorous" love from "protectionist" love. And it makes sense in response to my question. I guess that I do have distinct feelings for each. But I also have strong "protectionist" love for my wife, my mother, my girls soccer team, and others. So the "amorous" love can be described as a subset of the general love that we feel for many others. Or it might be completely separate. Only chemicals and brainwaves can tell.
This is much more pleasant than the contentious discussion about Mr. Darwin. Thank you.
Love is real, not illusive, it's just very rare like a beautiful or like an exotic flower. When one feels love it is usually real and very spiritiual and happy. When it's not happy, it's illusive.
Certainy when love is real, it is wonderful, it makes us see the roses. Illusive love is blindness and must be identified as co-denpendancy as the roses will lose their fragrance. But love is shown in many ways: romantic, motherly, friendship. It's passion that best defines love. The smile and the laughter will lift the spirits with a connection like none other and the sharing of fears will slow the wonder and joy of love, but if it's really love, love it for the moment. Forget the past, stop worrying about the future, love is fleeting: catch it whenever you can and if it lasts for a lifetime you'll give science something possitive to theorise.
Love is a combination of science - religion - mind - body - sense and non-sense, including the sixth sense. It is not an illusion, unless one has become co-dependant - out of touch with the self - manic-depressive - involved in a marraige of convenience. Love is what Webster or the Wikepedia says it is. Love is endearing to the soul, the full experience of the senses. Love is ever changing, like the crest of a wave, it lifts and crashes. Love is leastly a science, it is a feeling; something left for poets to illusidate. To define love would be a mistake. Love is beauty and beauty is rare .
Love is not a science, it is a feeling of affection. Love occurs in many fasions and is only an illusion when it is not mutual, or is co-dependant, which often happens. Love is defined only in Websters and the Wikepedia, when it should be illuminated mostly by poets and philosophers who understand the temporal, the changes of an ocean wave..., the crest and the fall. Love that lasts a lifetime happens only for the delusionary people who expect dreams and miracles to come true every day. Many fool themselves of the science, the theorys, the consistancys of love. Love is beautious and beauty is rare. But..., beauty, love is never illusive. It catches you on the crest of a wave and you take the fall!
How to Expel Hurtful Stereotypes from Classrooms across the Country
Is Ketamine the Next Big Depression Drug?
Psychologists Find New Ways to Steel Minority Students against Fear of Failure
How Bad Is the Rebound from Energy Efficiency Efforts?
Without Glia, the Brain Would Starve
You Are Less Beautiful Than You Think
China's One-Child Policy Affects Personality
Childhood ADHD Linked to Obesity in Adulthood
29 Comments
Add CommentIt's interesting to view these 2 images as a "Cross-Eyed" single 3D image.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt becomes a pop-out mostly-grey blue-red-twinkling heart.
"love (as with every other emotion we feel) is not rooted in the heart, but in the brain."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are spiritual beings having a physical/material experience called life. All of our life experience and all of our response to this experience is rooted in our physical body, our physical self, and it is then sensed and responded to by our emotional and intellectual selves - in that chronological order - with our emotional and intellectual responses actually being in response to our physical responses.
There are some extremely rare examples of people who have lost their sense of proprioception (Ian Waterman being one). It seems pretty clear that such unfortunate people are, as a result of their condition, unable to experience "normal" emotional and intellectual responses to many situations because they are unaware of their physical response which means the usual kind of input that should be available to their emotional and intellectual selves is lacking. This in spite of the fact that their brains seem to be operating "normally."
As the Sufi teacher Hazrat Inayat Khan said, the mind is the surface of the heart and the heart is the depth of the mind. Each has its own way of knowing and understanding. Although the brain is certainly intimately involved in this process, it is only a part of the mechanism for processing and remembering information and for producing responses.
Love is an experience of togetherness, of oneness, of unity. It is experienced physically, emotionally and intellectually. It is vary real. And it is most strongly sensed in our hearts. But our spiritual heart is not our physical heart. Instead, it is more appropriately called our heart center or heart chakra. It is an energetic "body" that is larger than the physical body. It pulses in rhythm with the physical heart. It radiates and senses electromagnetic energy which allows it to intermingle and interact with the energetic (magnetic, light) bodies of other beings.
The physical information we sense through visual clues, touch, smell, taste, sound are very strong and we have learned to try to rely on these to such an extent that they tend to drown out many of the energetic clues available to us. Yet, when we speak of characteristics such as a magnetic personality or someone with good or bad vibes, what is really being referred to is a sense of someone’s energetic body. Although we can feel the energy of another very strongly, we have learned to pay more attention to the physical clues instead.
The good news is that we can learn to expand our awareness!
"We are spiritual beings.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are physical beings who, for some "unfathomable" reason, want to think/believe were somehow "endowed" with "spirutuality" (whatever that might mean).
Unfortunately for some, we really are nothing but the sum total of the electro-chemical processes taking place within our bodies (including our brains). Consciousness is just a by-product of these processes.
Let's please not dilute the issue with "spirituality" and the such..
are you believe in Buddism?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe slide show is really amazing !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisassuming that ymx007's question was directed at me:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno, I don't "believe" in anything, per se. I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know.
let science come up with the answers in its own time..
Got it , Pluto .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPluto, I'm stunned by your logic--sure, we're physical beings, you've got that down pat, but how do you make the leaping assumption that we have to be one of the two, i.e. physical vs spiritual? How do you imply that just because we're physical, we must not be spiritual? And as far as that 'consciousness just being a byproduct of biochemical processes' shtick, are all things incorporating biochemical processes 'conscious'? like trees and carrots ? or cells in a lab?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know people like you think there's no empirical evidence for spirituality (and here I'm blatantly disregarding the entire works of several prominent nativitist psychologists, just for the sake of argument) but there's really no evidence to the contrary either, so why do you insist on closing the lid on the possibility? Considering spirituality for what it is does not mean you're doing so for 'comfort' or hope..several people might be, but several others are genuninely evaluating it as a legitimate and influential part of our selves--an extension beyond the obvious of the biochemical. Even if you don't think you're any different from a brocolli sprout, you really need to stop diluting a rational argument process with your "fashionably skeptic" arm-chair psychology.
An "illusion" is defined as " a deceptive appearance or impression"or a "thing that is or is likely to be interpreted wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses" [according to the dictionary in my Macbook computer] If we want to settle the question of whether love is an illusion or not we would need a "scientific definition " of "love".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reality "love" is what people feel or claim to feel for their spouses children parents and so on.In principle it is possible to reduce "love" to biochemical reactions in a certain sector of the brain and hence to test whether lovers who claim to love each other also feel what they claim to feel
However saying that the love that people feel is/is not an illusion complicates things further.We only know that something is an illusion when it is tested against another reality. If "love" is an illusion what is the reality against which it is tested ? Given that "love" is also tied up with many other standards or expectations in given societies [duty, honour , or indeed "culture"], what is the "social reality " used to benchmark "love" and come to the conclusion that it is or is not an illusion.
My view is that the question of whether the "love" that people "feel" or "claim to feel" is real or illusory is intrinsically nonsensical.
Certainly, one may say these feelings that are experienced are nothing more than the "illusion" of biochemical processes working in conjunction with our social interactions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnalogously, one can also argue that all complex organisms are nothing more than the "illusion" of billions of single celled organisms working in conjunction with one another to form what we define as a "single" organism.
So should we be saying "we" or "I"?
On top(or below) of that we can toss in the "illusion" that subatomic particles create atomic particles, which in turn generate chemical "illusions", those chemical illusions creating molecular ones and so on...anyone catch my drift here?
As far as I, excuse us, we am concerned all information concerning the nature of our perceived reality is a fully legitimate experience of the observer or shall we more accurately say active participant(s).
I feel like this needs to be added:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Democritus introduces the intellect having an argument with the senses about what is 'real'.
The intellect says; 'Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void.'
To which the senses retort; 'Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.' "
-Erwin Schrodinger
In addition I am inclined to agree with thanda1's comment.
Otherwhere:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll come to that in due time'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes - whereas there is a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly just the combined action of mainly two hormones: oxytocin and vasopressin (among others..).
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
But the main point here is, what exactly is 'spirituality'?
Otherwhere:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll get there in due time!'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes, but rather a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly the combined action of a number of hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin being the main ones.
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
And, by the way, what exactly is spirituality? How do you define it?
Otherwhere:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I did not make any "assumptions"; on the contrary, I said "I know what I know, and don't "assume" about what I don't know." When evidence neither to support, nor to deny something exists, science takes the sensible standpoint of 'wait and see - we'll get there in due time!'. The point here is: when I see no scientific evidence to support spirituality (whatever that is - and I don't believe anyone has come up with a scientific explanation to that 'handle'), I see absolutely no reason to pre-suppose its validity.
As for 'consciousness', yes, any organism (from a single cell to the human animal) that is in any way 'aware' of its surroundings and interacts with it in any way (i.e. collects information from its surroundings and 'acts' on that information in some way) is conscious. What maybe I should have said in my previous post was "self-consciousness" or "self-awareness", for which I see no evidence (apart from religious texts - and you really can't call that 'evidence') that it is not a by-product of our bodily processes, but rather a lot saying that it is. For example, what we call 'love' is possibly the combined action of a number of hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin being the main ones.
There is obviously a lot more to be said here, but don't let me take up more of your time..
And, by the way, what exactly is spirituality? How do you define it?
my sincere apologies for my multiple posts - totally my mistake..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the first example the red heart stands out because the red color is lighter in value than the blue color, not because of any difference in hue. Squint your eyes and you will see that the blue depicted is almost as dark as the black. If the red and blue colors were adjusted to the same light/dark value neither would "come forward" or recede in relation to the other. Value (sometimes called tonality) is a quality distinct from hue; red is not inherently lighter than blue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we eliminate "lo and behold!" and other assorted rapturously epiphany-like exclamations of superstitious double-talk, we can rationally assess the facts and home in on the truth of something. Remaining calm in the face of chaos is not easy -- especially when one-word answers, a/k/a God -- seem to offer reassuring comfort. Bishop Usher was a self-deluded deist; Charles Darwin was a reasoning man. Who best to follow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to get some more input regarding vision. I wear relatively weak glasses ONLY for reading smaller print. In slide 1, I see the opposite with my glasses on--the blue heart pops out and the red is recessed. In slide 2, the perception of movement is greater with the glasses on. In slide 3, I only perceive the darkened aura at a distance without the glasses. In slide 4, without glasses the shape of the heart is more defined and in 3D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is, are these "illusions" simply a matter of focus? Shouldn't the cones (or is it the rods..sorry, not my specialty) perceive color the same whether or not the focus is perfect? As I said, my glasses are only a factor of 2, only used for reading, and I can still see the golf ball land 300 yards away. My vision before 40 was better than normal.
Any thoughts?
On the other subject...are ther any chemical or brain wave differences concerning my love for my child and my love for my wife? There must be common patterns and reactions, but to me they are very distinct feelings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny thoughts?
notslic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile not being a neurologist, or anywhere near, my thoughts on the subject..
I believe they are part & parcel of the same mechanism, for the same purpose (continuation of the species). But:
The 'love' one feels for one's child is more ingrained in one's genes - as a mechanism to safeguard and/or guarantee the well-being of one's progency (after all, this is what nature & natural selection is all about: once you are over the mate selection hurdle, the next step is to make sure that your offspring survives to join the gene pool) and has nothing to do with 'amorous' love. I believe the hormone oxytocin plays a crucial role here.
The 'love' one feels for another human being, while again being a mechanism of nature for the same purpose (to maximize the survival chances of the offspring, by affecting long-term bonding between partners), is more short-term. Once the offspring joins the fray, the need for protection and hence, "amorous love', will diminish (human society is replete with examples of this..).
I believe this second kind of love is (almost) unique to the human animal, since the human offspring needs a much longer period of caring-for than the offspring of other animals and the need for pair-bonding is much more pronounced and crucial.
Anyway, this is what I think.. :)
Hi Pluto...I see how you distinguish "amorous" love from "protectionist" love. And it makes sense in response to my question. I guess that I do have distinct feelings for each. But I also have strong "protectionist" love for my wife, my mother, my girls soccer team, and others. So the "amorous" love can be described as a subset of the general love that we feel for many others. Or it might be completely separate. Only chemicals and brainwaves can tell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is much more pleasant than the contentious discussion about Mr. Darwin. Thank you.
WAt EVER ...i HAte BEINg INloVE ..EVERytyM I do ...i Only SUfferS....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi love to be in love i just get scared cuz i have been hurt way to much
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove is real, not illusive, it's just very rare like a beautiful or like an exotic flower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen one feels love it is usually real and very spiritiual and happy. When it's not happy, it's illusive.
Certainy when love is real, it is wonderful, it makes us see the roses. Illusive love is blindness and must be identified as co-denpendancy as the roses will lose their fragrance. But love is shown in many ways: romantic, motherly, friendship. It's passion that best defines love. The smile and the laughter will lift the spirits with a connection like none other and the sharing of fears will slow the wonder and joy of love, but if it's really love, love it for the moment. Forget the past, stop worrying about the future, love is fleeting: catch it whenever you can and if it lasts for a lifetime you'll give science something possitive to theorise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove is a combination of science - religion - mind - body - sense and non-sense, including the sixth sense. It is not an illusion, unless one has become co-dependant - out of touch with the self - manic-depressive - involved in a marraige of convenience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove is what Webster or the Wikepedia says it is.
Love is endearing to the soul, the full experience of the senses.
Love is ever changing, like the crest of a wave, it lifts and crashes.
Love is leastly a science, it is a feeling; something left for poets to illusidate. To define love would be a mistake.
Love is beauty and beauty is rare .
Love is not a science, it is a feeling of affection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove occurs in many fasions and is only an illusion when it is not mutual, or is co-dependant, which often happens.
Love is defined only in Websters and the Wikepedia, when it should be illuminated mostly by poets and philosophers who understand the temporal, the changes of an ocean wave..., the crest and the fall.
Love that lasts a lifetime happens only for the delusionary people who expect dreams and miracles to come true every day. Many fool themselves of the science, the theorys, the consistancys of love.
Love is beautious and beauty is rare. But..., beauty, love is never illusive. It catches you on the crest of a wave and you take the fall!