Insert P, page 1/2.
p.1 p.1 Perception problems with the water figures.
p.2 Interpretations of the perception problems.
||| contents
Perception problems with the water figures.
.1 Usually, we do not pay attention to the water figures; we pass by without perceiving them.
If not necessary, they do not catch our attention.
.2 It is possible that the water figures are not perceived when there is no need to see them. I did, probably because I needed to.
.3 The water figures are objects that may be ignored, most of the times, without loss or damage. On top of that, they found themselves in competition with other objects, more relevant in our daily life, in catching our attention, a limited resource, being limited the time it requires.
The water figures easy to be perceived.
.4 In order to perceive most part of the water figures, one has just to know of their existence, and then to get accustomed to them, until they become commonplace.
.5 A few examples of water figures easy to be perceived are presented on page 1.2.
Water figures unperceived directly.
.6 There are also some peculiar water figures which seem impossible to be perceived directly (in their context). They can be seen only on a photo, or on a movie, out of context.
.7 At present, one does not know how many kinds of them there are, nor whether they are rare events, or commonplace.
On the pseudo-waves of protuberances.
.8 Often, the water figures take the shapes of protuberances, which can easily be perceived.
Lusenzo 070414u0811.
.9 Though, sometimes, they get formed starting as pseudo- waves of protuberances, unperceived directly.
The pseudo-waves.
.10 Most likely, the pseudo-waves are not perceived directly because they do not appear to have a known cause, such as the wind, a passage of a boat, or anything else.
.11 Moreover, they have peculiarities different from normal waves (see pages 1.5 and 1.6).
We see on the basis of our knowledge.
.12 As the light signals get to our eye, our mind try to explain them on the basis of our past experiences, and formulate an hypothesis. We would see just a possible interpretation of the reality.
.13 That's roughly in agreement with the theory on perception of the school of Gregory (1970).
In case a plausible interpretation is not possible.
.14 If we cannot formulate a plausible hypothesis on an object, using our known categories, we cannot see it as it is.
Directly, or on a photo.
.15 The pseudo-waves of protuberances seem to be censured by our brain, excluding them from our perception, if their visual signals present themselves to our eyes directly, in their proper context.
.16 If they are seen on a photo, or on a movie, the threshold of this kind of censure decreases, though not by the same mesure and manner for everybody.
continued ||| © copyright notice