JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/15/health/stereo-vision-recovery/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
It's a cool story, but I have a specific question on part of a sentence in it. (And this might belong under philosophy, but to me it seems that science is a better fit.)
In summary, a guy who has always had poor depth perception because his eyes didn't point to the same place went to see a 3D movie, and not only enjoyed a dramatic 3D effect in the movie, but notices a marked improvement in his perception of depth that has lasted now well over a year.
My question though is about this bit:
"It's impossible to prove scientifically that the film itself altered his visual system. . . ."
Impossible is a very strong word. And that claim seems to rely on an assumption that something more is going on than events in the natural world.
I recall a demonstration on Alan Alda's PBS show (Scientific American Frontiers). A subject was put in a chair under a huge thing that was essentially a more sophisticated EEG. He wore glasses with one blue and one red lens. He was shown a pattern of red stripes in one direction with superimposed blue stripes in the other direction (that is, one color vertical, and the other horizontal). Without the glasses you see a sort of plaid pattern of both colors of stripes. With the glasses you perceive only one or the other, and which you see switches periodically. Nothing is changing in what is being displayed or anything else outside the guy's head. In the demonstration, the EEG-type machine was able to tell scientists which pattern he was perceiving at any given moment. (From this episode: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1101/segments/1101-5.htm )
In other words, qualia aren't always impenetrable to science.
So what do you think? Impossible to prove scientifically, or not?
It's a cool story, but I have a specific question on part of a sentence in it. (And this might belong under philosophy, but to me it seems that science is a better fit.)
In summary, a guy who has always had poor depth perception because his eyes didn't point to the same place went to see a 3D movie, and not only enjoyed a dramatic 3D effect in the movie, but notices a marked improvement in his perception of depth that has lasted now well over a year.
My question though is about this bit:
"It's impossible to prove scientifically that the film itself altered his visual system. . . ."
Impossible is a very strong word. And that claim seems to rely on an assumption that something more is going on than events in the natural world.
I recall a demonstration on Alan Alda's PBS show (Scientific American Frontiers). A subject was put in a chair under a huge thing that was essentially a more sophisticated EEG. He wore glasses with one blue and one red lens. He was shown a pattern of red stripes in one direction with superimposed blue stripes in the other direction (that is, one color vertical, and the other horizontal). Without the glasses you see a sort of plaid pattern of both colors of stripes. With the glasses you perceive only one or the other, and which you see switches periodically. Nothing is changing in what is being displayed or anything else outside the guy's head. In the demonstration, the EEG-type machine was able to tell scientists which pattern he was perceiving at any given moment. (From this episode: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1101/segments/1101-5.htm )
In other words, qualia aren't always impenetrable to science.
So what do you think? Impossible to prove scientifically, or not?
Last edited:
