Perception problems with the water figures.

Usually water figures do not catch our attention. Unless you are accustomed to see them.


prologue > index ||| © copyright notice

1 - Perception problems with the ordinary water figures.
2 - Perception problems with the density waves.
3 - On the perception of the water figures.

If on a tablet, set the display vertically; if on a smart phone, set it horizontally.


Perception problems with the ordinary water figures.

Usually, we do not pay attention to the water figures; we pass by without perceiving them. With the exception for the persons, who already have had the chance to know of their existence, and got accustomed to see them. At least, as far as the “ordinary water figures” are concerned.

If not necessary, they do not catch our attention.

It is possible that the ordinary water figures are not perceived when there is no need to see them. I perceived them, probably because I needed to.

The water figures are objects that may be ignored, without loss or damage. On top of that, they found themselves in competition with other objects, more relevant in our daily life. So, they do not catch our attention, a limited resource, being limited the time we have.

Exercising the mind to see them.

In order to perceive most part of the ordinary water figures, one has just to know of their existence, and then to get accustomed to them, until they become commonplace. Examples of water figures easy to be perceived are presented at the end of page 2.3.5.


Perception problems with the density waves.

Some of the water figures defy our way of reasoning; they may be perceived only by means of photos or films

Perception of the water figures extra.

There are also some peculiar water figures, the density waves, which would defy our common sense. When seen in the context (being there, at the same time, with all your senses open), they are not perceived correctly.

Most of the times, our mind does not accept to see unusual objects, considered unlikely.

Observation possible if some information is subtracted.

Accepting to see a strange phenomenon, of which we know nothing, seems easier if its observation paradoxically takes place with less information, indirectly, out of the context.

Thanks to photos, movies, monitors - thus with less information - our perception becomes less reticent, less restrictive.

Such a way, the threshold of non-perception appears to get lower. Though not by the same manner and mesure for everybody; it depends on the individual mind, and on the level it has been educated to accept to see such phenomena.

With less pieces of information, the oberved reality will be partial. Though, otherwise, the interpretation would be deviated unto a known category. In this case, unto the object known as “wave”.

On the density waves.

For instance, the water figures may take the shapes of protuberances, which can easily be perceived.

Lusenzo 070414u0811.

However, when they get formed, they start as density waves, unperceived directly. Most probably because they do not appear to have a known cause, such as the wind, a passage of a boat, or anything else.

Moreover, they have peculiarities different from normal waves. So far, five differences have been already singled out (see page 2.3.6).

Two examples of density waves.

Two examples of density waves of the type “when you are in the context, you do not see them”. Though, you may see them on a film.

Intermittent density waves.


A grid of protuberances behaving almost in unison.


If one cannot see the density waves on films, he has to try to perceive them, by watching them repeatedly; in desperate cases, in more than one session.

Making a film on the density waves.

If you have to make a movie of the density waves, you have to keep recording, when they are most probable (see the variables), even if you do not see anything worth while.

In other terms, what you see, may be not what you will get later from the film.

Indeed, as a partial correction of what I have just said, to a mind educated to the phenomenon, the monitor of the camera partially reveals what is in progress, in real time.


On the perception of the water figures.

We interpret the reality on the basis of our experience.

Possible explanation.

I give here a few hypothetical reasons, provisionally, waiting for some experts on perception make this phenomenon clear.

Each of the reasons proposed here could represent just an aspect of the question, without excluding the validity of the other ones.

We see on the basis of our knowledge.

Generally, as the light signals get to our eye, they are integrated with all the ambient information. Our mind try to explain what we see on the basis of our past experiences, and formulate an hypothesis. We would see just a possible interpretation of the reality, using our own categories.

That would roughly be in agreement with the theory on perception of the school of Gregory (1970).

In case a plausible interpretation is not possible.

In order to perceive density waves when there is no wind, and no waves caused by the passage of boat, we should have a mind ready to accept to see spontaneous waves, i.e. being developed without an apparent cause.

That could not be possible. A normal mind would exclude from its vision what it is unable to explain. At least in case of a direct perception.

Seen on a movie.

If the density waves are seen on a movie, the ambient information is given, in default, by our mind, as implicit and plausible presumptions.

Paradoxically, with less information, after this mind operation, done in default, no need for a censure; it can then accept to perceive them as waves.

The movie seen as a manipulated one.

Another reason could be that, nowadays, we know that a movie can be manipulated, so that what we see in any one of them could be false.

Consequently, by accepting to see, there is no risk for us to raise a doubt, about what we love to know already.

When watching a movie, our censure decreases, in dependance on our individual mind.

By contrast, if the same event presents itself directly, with all the contextual particulars, the censure would divert our perception in favour to a plausible interpretation.

This mental procedure is useful; at least, on the short run. 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.

I cannot rule out the possible contribution of the instrument, the camera, which could bring out details that otherwise would have passed unobserved.