Multistable Perception
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Multistable Perception         


Author: R. Henry Nigl
Date: Nov 22, 2006 18:36

"Transitions from one percept to its alternative are called perceptual
reversals. They are spontaneous and stochastic events which cannot be
eliminated by intentional efforts (although some control over the
alternation process is learnable). Reversal rates vary drastically between
stimuli and observers, and has been found to be slower for people with
Bipolar disorder ("sticky" interhemispheric switch in bipolar disorder)
[1]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistable_perception#Characterization

Added 11/22/06:
'Impossible objects' exist as two dimensional vectors which can be defined
by Cartesian Coordinate systems. As such, the 'objects' do not exist as
'true three dimensional forms', and in this context are identical to the
perception of 'paint' on a wall, that is: 'color'. Or, similarly, a 'skin'
defining form. Thus, 'impossible objects' can be defined as a 'visual'
tautology, the ambiguity of the apparent object being nothing more than the
result of self-referential perceptual conventions.

Your thoughts and critique welcome.
1 Comment
Re: Multistable Perception         


Author: ++
Date: Nov 25, 2006 09:36

R. Henry Nigl wrote:
> "Transitions from one percept to its alternative are called perceptual
> reversals. They are spontaneous and stochastic events which cannot be
> eliminated by intentional efforts (although some control over the
> alternation process is learnable). Reversal rates vary drastically between
> stimuli and observers, and has been found to be slower for people with
> Bipolar disorder ("sticky" interhemispheric switch in bipolar disorder)
> [1]."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistable_perception#Characterization
>
> Added 11/22/06:
> 'Impossible objects' exist as two dimensional vectors which can be defined
> by Cartesian Coordinate systems. As such, the 'objects' do not exist as
> 'true three dimensional forms', and in this context are identical to the
> perception of 'paint' on a wall, that is: 'color'. Or, similarly, a 'skin'
> defining form. Thus, 'impossible objects' can be defined as a 'visual'
> tautology, the ambiguity of the apparent object being nothing more than the
> result of self-referential perceptual conventions.
> ...
Show full article (1.72Kb)
no comments