Bridging the gap

Scuba Pete · Aug 20, 2005

Our senses are indeed limited. Some see only the forest and disregard the trees. Some see only the trees and fail to see the much bigger picture. It all has to do with our perspective on life and on what is important to us.

It was like a dive I did with three students in 40 fathom grotto. During my orientation, I told them about the countless sand dollars that lined this place. I told them about the "ghost town" and that there were a series of sea biskits twelve foot up and to the right.

So on our second dive, I took them on a tour of this fossil laden grotto. I held one of their hands as I had them FEEL the sand dollars protruding like so many discs from the wall. I brought them to the "ghost town" (which is sooooo flakey) and then up to the biskits. We weren't deep so narcosis was not a factor. After the dive I asked them if they had EVER seen so many sand dollars.

"Sand dollars? There were sand dollars down there?"

They remembered the little plastic ghost town, but not the truly fantastic fossils imbedded into the walls. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I still am. It seems we see what we want to see and miss the truly amazing due to our biases or confusion. So it doesn't surprise me that people can not see the spiritual.

meogi · Aug 20, 2005

Ahmadi said:
Hmm... Interesting... Is there evidence that the soul actually interacts (not just subjectively) with the natural world? ... please don't mind me for my lack of knowlege regarding such evidence.

No. There's no evidence of a soul, either... but people claim that the soul is what makes us, us. It would have to be interacting with the natural somehow. Or at least, I would think so... although Deut's first point puts a hindrance on it.

michel said:
May I throw in my 5 cents' worth? - from a different angle altogether. Hasn't anyone here had a pet that has become fixated on one spot in the room ? - what do you all think the pet is doing?

Thinking? Or perhaps it's looking at something we can't see? As interesting as that thought is, I think we better figure out how humans see them first.

NetDoc said:
They remembered the little plastic ghost town, but not the truly fantastic fossils imbedded into the walls. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I still am. It seems we see what we want to see and miss the truly amazing due to our biases or confusion.

'Amazing' is biased in itself.

Like you said earlier, it all has to do with perspective and what is important to us. This is important to me, however, and I want to see it. But can't. Help.

NetDoc said:
So it doesn't surprise me that people can not see the spiritual.

Me either. However, some people can. In order to help bridge this gap, please answer: how do you pay attention to the spiritual?

Scuba Pete · Aug 20, 2005

To see the spiritual, you must eagerly seek it. Once you find a small bit of it, you need to respond to it.

He who seeks will find.

HelpMe · Aug 20, 2005

you want a physical reason to believe in something that by definition is not physical? sorry.

Mr Spinkles · Aug 21, 2005

NetDoc said:
They remembered the little plastic ghost town, but not the truly fantastic fossils imbedded into the walls. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I still am. It seems we see what we want to see and miss the truly amazing due to our biases or confusion.

NetDoc-- So three students do not see what you saw, and you therefore conclude that all three of them (even the one who touched the wall) were the ones whose biases caused them to "miss the truly amazing," that all three of them (not you) were confused? Do you think the three students are the only ones who see what they want to see? It goes both ways, you know: people who expect to see things can see things that aren't there just as easily as people who don't expect to see things can miss that which is there. Yet you appear not to give serious consideration to the possibility that your mind was playing tricks on you, rather than all three of your student's minds playing tricks on them.

Now, you're clearly an experienced diver, and I know next to nothing about diving, or your personal experience. In fact, I believe you when you say that the sand dollar fossils were there, and the students (somehow) missed them. My point is simply that people see things that are not there just as easily as people miss things that are there. None of us are safe from our own biases/expectations. That's why objective evidence is so important. (Meter sticks don't have expectations.)

NetDoc said:
So it doesn't surprise me that people can not see the spiritual.

It doesn't surprise me that people think they can see things that aren't there.

NetDoc said:
To see the spiritual, you must eagerly seek it. Once you find a small bit of it, you need to respond to it.

He who seeks will find.

It also doesn't surprise me that one must expect and "eagerly seek the spiritual" in order to (supposedly) see it. As you said yourself, "people see what they want to see". Knockout

Heck, I'll bet in order to see the Easter Bunny, you must eagerly seek him. Same goes for most imaginary things. (Goodness knows most people won't believe in such things unless they really, really want to.)

Scuba Pete · Aug 21, 2005

My dear Spinks,

it shows me that in the light of incontrovertible evidence, people see what they want to see.

I am sure that I have spoken of the first time I dove this grotto. Hal Watts (Mr Scuba) took me on a check out dive so that I could be a grotto guide. We went through a few procedures, and then we followed Hal on a tour. We approached the wall at @ 130 ft or so and my immediate impression was that someone had been so ill advised as to affix circular knives to the wall in such a way as to create an obvious diving hazard. At 100' the narcosis had been sufficiently alleviated that I realised that these were indeed sand dollars. They were stacked like cordwood to a depth of at least 30 ft, where the silt accumulation made it impossible to determine if they were still there. It is my guess that they continued to the the surface.

But not having seen it yourself, I could see how you could be swayed by the three that didn't. That doesn't make the fossils any less real mind you. I went on a search and while I found many sites that referenced 40 Fathom Grotto, I did not see one clear picture of the millions (possibly billions) of these fossils. There is no way in hell that I could prove their existence to you. Not without going there and coming back... sorta like heaven.

I would also like to point out that these students were briefed about the numerous fossils BEFORE their dive, they were pointed out several times DURING the dive, and they were even given a tactile feel of the fossils at the END of the dive. None are so blind as those who would not see.

Cynic · Aug 21, 2005

NetDoc said:
Our senses are indeed limited. Some see only the forest and disregard the trees. Some see only the trees and fail to see the much bigger picture. It all has to do with our perspective on life and on what is important to us.

It was like a dive I did with three students in 40 fathom grotto. During my orientation, I told them about the countless sand dollars that lined this place. I told them about the "ghost town" and that there were a series of sea biskits twelve foot up and to the right.

So on our second dive, I took them on a tour of this fossil laden grotto. I held one of their hands as I had them FEEL the sand dollars protruding like so many discs from the wall. I brought them to the "ghost town" (which is sooooo flakey) and then up to the biskits. We weren't deep so narcosis was not a factor. After the dive I asked them if they had EVER seen so many sand dollars.

"Sand dollars? There were sand dollars down there?"

They remembered the little plastic ghost town, but not the truly fantastic fossils imbedded into the walls. I was absolutely flabbergasted. I still am. It seems we see what we want to see and miss the truly amazing due to our biases or confusion. So it doesn't surprise me that people can not see the spiritual.

Attention is important both because it directs our receptors to stimuli we want to percieve and also because it influences the way information is processed once the receptors are stimulated (wallace, 1994). Attention can enhance perception of the stimuli to which we are paying attention and decrease our awareness of stimuli we are ignoring. Thus, when we focus our attention on something that interests us, we become both more aware of what we are looking at and less aware of other objects or parts of the scene. This seceltive property of attention is what William James (1890/1981) was referring to when he said that

"Millions of items... are present to my senses which never properly enter my experience. Why? Because they have no interest for me. My experience is what I agree to attend to... Everyone knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the min, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects of train of thought... It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others. "

Thus, normal attention, according to James, causes the things to which we attend to become a clearer and more vivid and causes things to which we don't attend to never enter our experience. This idea that things to which we don't attend never enter our experience may seem like a rather strong statement, but there is a good deal of evidence to support that claim. We will consider three illustrations of situations in which a lack of attention results in a lack of awareness.

Inattentional blindness is a situation in which a stimulus that is not attended is not perceived, even though a person is looking directly at it.....

-Sensation and Perception, by E. Bruce Goldstein, page 130

Oh look, a sand dollar. *picks one up*

I personally, would have recognized those sand dollars since I lived at the beach for 4 years as a young kid, and I would often play with the crabs, starfish, and such. It brings back good memories.
Things which are not important to us or has little meaning or value to us, do not grasp our attention, and sort of escapes conscious experience.

Netdoc said:
It seems we see what we want to see and miss the truly amazing due to our biases or confusion.

Not in this case. Inattentional blindness is not intentional. And it's not necassarily because of bias or confusion.

Netdoc said:
So it doesn't surprise me that people can not see the spiritual.

What exactly evokes experience of the spiritual, other then the perceptual and imaginative centers, and thus emotional centers of the brain? It's not something that can be observed objectively, but in itself is a subjective phenomina that people experience, something felt emotionally and intuitively, which is elicited by thought and perception.

I have such experiences when I see the beauty of nature, and the enormous scale of the universe filled with much complexity.

Feathers in Hair · Aug 21, 2005

michel said:
May I throw in my 5 cents' worth? - from a different angle altogether. Hasn't anyone here had a pet that has become fixated on one spot in the room ? - what do you all think the pet is doing?

Trying to freak me out! (See related "Far Side" cartoon!) Mine do this all the time. Infants, too.

ChrisP · Aug 21, 2005

FeathersinHair said:
Trying to freak me out! (See related "Far Side" cartoon!) Mine do this all the time. Infants, too.

I think it's a reaction to energy levels. These animals and children are more sensitive to electric/electro-magnetic/soul-juice, sense the difference in that particular spot and, not understanding it, become frightened?

Or I could just be completely wrong. :bonk:

meogi · Aug 22, 2005

NetDoc said:
it shows me that in the light of incontrovertible evidence, people see what they want to see.

I agree. But I don't think that personal interpretation/experience is incontrovertible. And that's why we're here.

But you answered:

NetDoc said:
To see the spiritual, you must eagerly seek it. Once you find a small bit of it, you need to respond to it.

He who seeks will find.

Which isn't really an answer. What must be sought / What is the 'spiritual'? and more importantly, Why must I interpret it personally? If it's something that exists whether I see it or not, I don't see why I have to interpret it as such in order to see it. It's needlessly circular...

But in your sand dollar story, they may not have seen the sand dollars on that dive, but they knew sand dollars existed (because they've seen them before). They didn't go: "Huh? What's a sand dollar?" They may have just missed them on this dive (and if they go back while paying attention, they will see them). So unless you're able to detail to me what the spiritual is, then the story itself is kinda useless (although intriguing).

Ahmadi · Aug 22, 2005

Cynic said:
What exactly evokes experience of the spiritual, other then the perceptual and imaginative centers, and thus emotional centers of the brain? It's not something that can be observed objectively, but in itself is a subjective phenomina that people experience, something felt emotionally and intuitively, which is elicited by thought and perception.

What about an actual blind person? Can you prove to him/her that coolour exist? Can you provide him/her objective evidence for the existence of colour?

No, of course not. It doesn't matter how much he/she doubts the existence of colour, colousr does exist even if he's simply getting subjective evidence for it.

Ahmadi · Aug 22, 2005

meogi said:
What must be sought / What is the 'spiritual'? and more importantly, Why must I interpret it personally? If it's something that exists whether I see it or not, I don't see why I have to interpret it as such in order to see it. It's needlessly circular...

What is the spiritual? The spiritual is not the physical and there isn't much objective evidence for it. However, there is alot of subjective evidence for it. The sources of this subjective evidence are provided by many religions and you can analyze it on your own.

Why must you or I interpret it personally? For our salvation. Since it exists, it does not mean it has to reveal itself to you. God does not need to reveal Himslef to you. You need God to reveal Himself to you in order to get eternal happiness.

Ahmadi · Aug 22, 2005

meogi said:
No. There's no evidence of a soul, either... but people claim that the soul is what makes us, us. It would have to be interacting with the natural somehow. Or at least, I would think so... although Deut's first point puts a hindrance on it.

Sorry for the late reply but 'observance' of God is a subjective experience. Why don't you analyze the subjective evidence and try to determine its reliability? Why do some people seem so allergic to subjective evidence?

JerryL · Aug 22, 2005

Sorry for the late reply but 'observance' of God is a subjective experience. Why don't you analyze the subjective evidence and try to determine its reliability? Why do some people seem so allergic to subjective evidence?

It's not that the evidence is subjective... all experience is subjective... it's the nature of the subjective evidence.

Scuba Pete · Aug 22, 2005

Well Meogi,

I guess the first order of business for you is to define what YOU think "spiritual" means and go hunt it.

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 22, 2005

Ahmadi said:
Why do some people seem so allergic to subjective evidence?

Because it's an oxymoron. The more interesting question is why some people seem so allergic to intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

Mr Spinkles · Aug 22, 2005

Ahmadi said:
What about an actual blind person? Can you prove to him/her that coolour exist? Can you provide him/her objective evidence for the existence of colour?

Yes, you can. In fact, there are colors that no human can see, but there IS objective evidence that other animals can see them. (I believe some hawks and snakes have been shown to see infrared and ultraviolet light, for example.)

NetDoc said:
I am sure that I have spoken of the first time I dove this grotto. Hal Watts (Mr Scuba) took me on a check out dive so that I could be a grotto guide. We went through a few procedures, and then we followed Hal on a tour. We approached the wall at @ 130 ft or so and my immediate impression was that someone had been so ill advised as to affix circular knives to the wall in such a way as to create an obvious diving hazard. At 100' the narcosis had been sufficiently alleviated that I realised that these were indeed sand dollars. They were stacked like cordwood to a depth of at least 30 ft, where the silt accumulation made it impossible to determine if they were still there. It is my guess that they continued to the the surface.

NetDoc said:

But not having seen it yourself, I could see how you could be swayed by the three that didn't. That doesn't make the fossils any less real mind you. I went on a search and while I found many sites that referenced 40 Fathom Grotto, I did not see one clear picture of the millions (possibly billions) of these fossils. There is no way in hell that I could prove their existence to you.

Click to expand...

I can imagine a number of ways. You could bring back a sample, for instance. That would be more than enough to convince me.

NetDoc said:

Not without going there and coming back... sorta like heaven.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I guess the same could be said of Never Never Land or any other imaginary world.

Ahmadi · Aug 23, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
Because it's an oxymoron.

PLease elaborate.

The more interesting question is why some people seem so allergic to intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

I don't see why religious experiences are not. If I ever start compiling such evidence... let's see... I would be long dead before it's ever compiled.

Ahmadi · Aug 23, 2005

JerryL said:
It's not that the evidence is subjective... all experience is subjective... it's the nature of the subjective evidence.

And what's wrong with the nature of the subjective evidence for God.

Mr_Spinkles said:
Yes, you can. In fact, there are colors that no human can see, but there IS objective evidence that other animals can see them. (I believe some hawks and snakes have been shown to see infrared and ultraviolet light, for example.)

yes.. I don't disagree with the fact that other animals can see what humans can't. But I am still interested in the original question: How can you provide objective evidence to a blind man that colour exists?

Yerda · Aug 23, 2005

Ahmadi said:
How can you provide objective evidence to a blind man that colour exists?

Double-blind tests?

The bad jokes are on me tonight.

Bridging the gap

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Â·Â´sociopathic meanderer`Â·

Mr

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

-- untitled --

Mr

Member

Member

Veteran Member