[From Don Hemminger 2005.09.07.1200 EDT]
Here’s a slightly contrived (but I think realistic) version of the OJ trial created in an attempt to untangle the meaning of thoughts, perceptions, and imagined perceptions in my own mind.
At the OJ trial, there is a juror that (for whatever reason) can’t be in the courtroom, so they are in a remote location connected by a video feed. They view all proceedings and evidence from the case via a monitor. During jury deliberation (all jurors are now together in one room), the previously remoted juror votes OJ guilty. When asked to explain his reasoning, he states that “he saw the initials OJS on the glove and so the glove definitely belongs to OJ and so he is guilty”. Another juror disagrees saying “there was no such marking on the glove”. The remoted juror replies “It was a bit faded, but I definitely saw it”. To prove his point, that juror called up recordings of all instances where the gloves were captured on video (which would include all cases where that juror could actually have “seen” the initials).
If the recordings clearly showed the glove with the initials, then that could be an example of a perception that was true that lead to a valid perception of guilt, although it could also be the case of a valid visual perception of the initials OJS along with an incorrect assumption (thought or imagining) that OJS stood for “Orenthal James Simpson” when it actually stood for “the Osage Jewelry Store”. If, on the other hand, a detailed review was unable to find anything even slightly resembling the initials (juror states “I swear I saw those initials, but I guess I didn’t”), I would say that would be an example of a perception that contained imagined information.
From that example I think one can conclude:
-
Higher level perceptions can include (and thus be “contaminated” by) imagined perceptions
-
Such perceptions cannot be reliably determined to be imagined or not imagined, simply by reviewing ones own recollections.
Don
···
[From Bill Powers (2005.09.07.18512 MDT)]
Martin Taylor 2005.09.07.10.45 --
I'd say from my personal experience that the above refers to perceptions of the music at many levels, from the emotional content down to the timings of individual notes, and even their pitch (sometimes).
Thanks for that very appropriate example. I have a similar one, having played boogie woogie and blues piano in high school and having developed a pretty good set of licks. But much later, I finally really listened to some good pianists, and realized that I was hearing far more of my reference signals than the actual performance. Very humbling.
Best,
Bill P.
···
Replacing (part of) the imagined perception with (more of) the sense-derived perception is what's hard, but do-able with a good teacher who notes the differences between what one does and what she would prefer one to do, when one perceives oneself as having done exactly what she said one should have done.
It's not a question of refining the perceptual functions, since all along I could hear in other people's playing differences from how I thought a piece should be played, differences much smaller than I eventually began to be able to hear in my own playing.
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2005.09.08.0840)]
Don Hemminger )2005.09.08.1115 EDT) --
Boy I must I have really missed the mark. I had to respond to my own post.
It happens all the time to me. Don't worry about it. Just keep pluggin'
away. I've found that it's way too often true that what excites me doesn't
excite others. Take PCT, for example;-)
So was there any redeeming value in example my or do I have to go back to the
drawing board. Or is everyone just feeling satisfied and relieved that the
Spat is over
All of the above, probably.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
