We call it Phenomenology in Philosophy and what you said about it Metaphysics.
Although I see you're still punting this left/right brain metaphor, so tell me, how is this visual illusion split across the 'brains'? Given that you think such processing as the visuals is located in one half?
When you first observe the image you do it with a more open, overall perspective. A right-brain type of perception.
When you direct your focus onto the little red ball, that tiny focus, is characteristic of left brain thinking. We focus upon minutia and almost miraculously, the outer sphere disappears...an accepted sacrifice for the change in attention.
Thank you for responding to my thread and allowing me to explain this simple yet fascinating aspect of philosophy in practice!
Bill, if we follow your "instruction" ("I want you to focus upon this red ball...") we are not then, I think, doing philosophy at all. Yes, if we follow your instruction the background -- and possibly larger, possibly more important -- information can disappear.
For me, however, that did not happen. Why not? Because in following your instruction, I also followed my basic philosophical instinct. I looked at the red ball in it's context, shifting back and forth between the two -- and even further out, into the rectangle of it's inclusion in this thread -- and tried to understand what the relationships of all of these were.
And yes, as my consciousness slipped back and forth between figure and ground (and beyond) relative importance (and sometimes even the existence) of each changed. And that set me wondering "why?"
So I rather think that your explanation, while containing a smattering of the truth of the experience, leaves out a whole lot, too.
Bill Wiltrack wrote:...
Thank you for responding to my thread and allowing me to explain this simple yet fascinating aspect of philosophy in practice! [/size]
Phenomenology numbnuts.
Your phenomenological explanation leaves a lot to be desired even in the terms of the 'left/right' 'brain' metaphor you cling to, as in your previous posts upon this metaphor you claim that visual perception is in one half only. How do you reconcile this?
um...I have the feeling the exercise did not work for you.
If you are unable to experience the philosophical exercise in the way that I have relayed it I can understand how you would be less than excited towards the outcome of the exercise.
There is no way I could go beyond the description that already accompanies this thread.
If you are unable to focus upon the red ball that does not mean you are less of a philosopher than me, or less of a philosopher than those who are able to experience the full exercise.
I understand your frustration.
Just move-on.
There are other thread that you can enjoy upon this forum.
We can experience these other topics together.
You are no less of a philosopher than the rest of us.
You're an idiot. Of course I made the illusion work, the frustration is yours. Do not delude yourself that you are philosopher.
p.s.
Its not even a blue circle.
I told you and I am being sincere; Not being able to experience this one philosophically directed exercise does not mean a thing towards your ability to experience philosophy.
Believe me, I do not think anything less of you.
I'm sorry that I brought this exercise up.
I did not mean for this exercise to reflect negatively towards anyone.
Perhaps you should just move on. We'll all move on.
I do thank you and everyone for opening up and sharing upon this thread.
I stare at the ball and the blue part disappears and when I blink then it reappears.
Why is it a question of the hemisphere ?
I thought it would be just an effect of your eyes growing tired.
The philosophy behind this experiment is: things are not always as they appear and our senses cannot be trusted. David Hume wrote a treaty about the subject.