Chapter 1, page 3.
1.3 1.1 The water figures - introduction.
1.2 Perception problems with the water figures.
1.3 On the water figures unperceived directly.
1.4 Commonplace water figures.
1.5 Ambient conditions.
1.6 Circumstances affecting the water figures.
1.7 Time relations with the ocean tides.
||| contents
We see on the basis of our knowledge.
.1 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 see a possible interpretation of the reality.
.2 That's roughly in agreement with the theory on perception of the school of Gregory (1970).
In case a plausible interpretation is not possible.
.3 If we cannot formulate a plausible hypothesis on an object, using our known categories, we cannot see it.
Directly, or on a photo.
.4 The 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. If they are seen on a photo, or on a film, the threshold of this kind of censure decreases, though not by the same mesure and manner for everybody.
Possible explanations.
.5 I give here three hypothetical reasons, provisionally, waiting for some experts make this phenomenon clear.
.6 Each of the reasons given here could give just an aspect of the question, without excluding the validity of the other ones.
If they present themselves to the eye directly.
.7 When the visual signals of the waves of protuberances present themselves to the eye directly, they are integrated by all the ambient information, such as the lack of wind, and the lack of waves brought about by boats (as in the examples given).
.8 The direct perception of the waves in question would require a mind ready to accept to see spontaneous waves, i.e. being developed without an apparent cause.
.9 For a normal mind, that could not be possible. In such a case, it would exclude from our vision what remains unexplained.
Seen on a film.
.10 If this kind of waves are seen on a film, there is no ambient information, which are then given by our mind, in real time, as implicit and altogether plausible presumptions.
.11 After this mind operation, no need for a censure; it can then accept to perceive such waves.
The film seen as a manipulated one.
.12 Another reason could be that, nowadays, we know that a film can be manipulated, so that what we see in any one of them could be false.
.13 Consequently, if our mind accepts then to see, there is no risk that, afterwords, we are compel to raise a doubt about what we love to know already.
.14 The threshold of our censure decreases, in dependance on our individual character.
.15 If the same event presents itself directly, with all the contextual particulars, the censure would divert our perception in favour to a plausible interpretation. Otherwise, in that circumstance, we would be no longer protected, but compelled to arise doubts concerning our knowledge, taking our mind away from our daily activity.
The contribution of the camera.
.16 Eventually, I cannot rule out the contribution of the instrument, the camera, which could bring out details that otherwise would have passed unobserved.
continued ||| © copyright notice