[TinyTree]

So the question is: are there other phenomena which you can perceive in two alternative ways, valid in both ways?
The lights of course are not moving. You are watching the apparent motion of the "on light", which itself does not exist, except within your brain.
However, that is not to say a lot of the phenomena of our world is also the same - a nonexistent entity to which we attach meaning.
Thus, finding other phenomena which you can perceive in two alternative ways implies that it may not exist in a fundamental way, but only as perceptual phenomena.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca

When reading the brief course of psychology (part - attention), I came across one interesting experiment: as it appears, the individual doesn’t perceive by vision everything that’s in the field of vision (for instance, if we are looking at the blackboard with 20 different numbers written on it, we don’t perceive simultaneously all, but only part of them) despite impressing of all of them on the retina. What’s the reason? i.e. why all numbers aren’t perceived despite them being within the field of vision? It was told in the conclusion that volume of attention is restricted (defined).

As experiment revealed, volume of attention usually equals to 5-6 simple impressions. When in the device, called tacho-scope, the persons were shown huge amount of black points with the speed of one/tenth, or one/fourth of second, the persons couldn’t perceive more than six ones at the time. (The number of shown simultaneously perceived objects lessens to five, if instead of black points small pictures of numbers are displayed)
As a conclusion, the person generally can’t perceive all material that’s impressed on the retina. The question, why, isn’t answered yet, at least I didn’t find what is material substrate, ground for such perception in detail.
I offer a simple animation, as test for readers:
You should concentrate on red point within the circle and test, how many numbers or letters you can read at the same time. I can 4-5 including red point.
The technique of animation: there are 40 frames in animation and speed is 4 frames/sec, i.e. the time of appearance of one frame is one fourth part of second.

How on earth do you manage these really great animations? Well done, like it.
Kind regards, Michael.

[zeroca]

To simplify analysis I changed tactics a little: defined the angle between each following phases (As you remember, in the examples above I defined only starting and ending phases and the animation was created by program automatically). I took the wheel with 16 spoke again, but in this case – regular figure (As you noticed, the distances between animations above weren’t equal). The angle between each spoke equals to 22.5 degrees (360/16=22.5). I took one sector, i.e. two neighboring spokes encircled with arc, (the length of arc is L), and divided this sector into two parts by bisector. The length L=2Пr/n, where n is a number of spokes n=natural number. Let’s take any point on the circle (for convenience – the point, where radius is touching the circle: green point-a on the diagram D). Let’s first consider the variant, when lagging (i.e. the length of arc- L1 from the point a to the next, following location of the same point a in next phase is less than L, i.e. less than arc between neighboring spokes. Let’s divide this particular task into three parts: when
1. L1<L/2,
2. L1=L/2,
3. L1>L/2;
In any case when L1<L/2, (angle between two following phases is within the range between 0 and 11.25 degrees) revolving is perceived as clockwise (variant A on the diagram), i.e. any following location of the first spoke in next phase falls left-side from the bisector (in our particular case the lagging equals to 5 degrees, i.e. is less than 11.25 degrees – between the first spoke and bisector – variant A on the diagram).
When L/2< L1<L, revolving is perceived as counterclockwise, i.e. any following location of the first spoke in next phase falls right-side from the bisector (in our particular case the lagging equals to 17 degrees, i.e. is less than 22.5 degrees – between the first and second spoke, right-side of the bisector - variant B1 on the diagram).
When L1= L/2, revolving is perceived in both directions equally simultaneously, as any following location of the first spoke in next phase falls on the bisector.
Let’s consider as well the variants, when lagging is more than L (L1> L).
So, the final formula can be:
If lagging: K*L+ L1, where k is whole number and L1< L/2, clockwise - Variant A
If lagging: K*L+ L1, where k is whole number and L1> L/2, counterclockwise -Variants B1 and B2.
If lagging: K*L+ L1, where k is whole number and L1= L/2, in both directions, i.e. revolving direction depends on your inclination and on your eye - Variant C.
The following position of the first spoke is marked as thick black on the nether part of diagram, where separate sectors are drawn.

[zeroca]

I’ve forgotten the variant, when lagging L1 equals to L, or rather when L1=K*L and K is a whole number. In this case spinning of spokes isn’t perceived (in our case lagging equals to 22.5 degrees between successive phases - clockwise, and spinning of wheel also is clockwise).

[zeroca]

To make more presentable the animation above, I changed it a little (painted in blue one sector of wheel). So, you see clearly, that spinning of spokes isn't perceived, but spinning of wheel - yes.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca

To make more presentable the animation above, I changed it a little (painted in blue one sector of wheel). So, you see clearly, that spinning of spokes isn't perceived, but spinning of wheel - yes.

Do you do all the design work on these drawings? If you do, you are a
genius. Do like the work Zeroca, keep it up, and will you be joining the debate
tonight in the chat room?

Kindest regards, Michael.

[zeroca]

Dear Michael!

I’m an ordinary man. To make the animation isn’t hard. I learnt it by myself with helping of a good textbook. It’s really easy. All design work I do by myself.
I’m sorry, I can not join a chat, because three successive night duties are expecting me on my work, and I should have a good sleep.
Regards,
--Merab.

[dustin_archibald]

I tired to make the wheels posted by zeroca spin in the opposite direction. A, B1, B2 were harder to spin in the opposite direction than C. C was very easy and seemed to spin at the same rate. A, B2, B3 took more effort and when they went the opposite direction they seemed to go faster.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by TinyTree

So the question is: are there other phenomena which you can perceive in two alternative ways, valid in both ways?
The lights of course are not moving. You are watching the apparent motion of the "on light", which itself does not exist, except within your brain.
However, that is not to say a lot of the phenomena of our world is also the same - a nonexistent entity to which we attach meaning.
Thus, finding other phenomena which you can perceive in two alternative ways implies that it may not exist in a fundamental way, but only as perceptual phenomena.

I don’t argue, that might be true, but let’s clear our tactics:
Generally nobody can prove anything to anybody, and can’t be sure of 100% correctness of any phenomenon. Even what seems to us outer universe can be a perverted perception of something quite different, i.e. kind of illusion, or dream, but we can be sure that at least one single assertion – “even illusion of existence definitely means existence”, is right. So expression - I exist for certain, is sound.
All concepts of mankind bear experimental character, i.e. the character of assumption, but if afterwards this assumption is somehow “proved”, then we accept it more or less firmly. For instance, let’s take mirror: If I see that face of somebody familiar to me is the same (might be with some distortions) in the mirror as without it, so I can guess how I look like, i.e. the appearance in mirror, when I stay alone before it, is mine, i.e. it’s just my appearance. I can strengthen my assumption with additional actions: moving of hand a little gives the same “reply” within mirror; the background in it is the same as real one, so generally I conclude that mirror reflects precisely existing before it. Is it really true or false, it’s another matter, so let’s eliminate illusions maximally, i.e. let’s analyze subject, assuming that this world is really what we see, bearing in mind at the same time that all of us perceive it differently and that it might presents an illusion.
At this moment we have:
1. All scenarios (pictures) are perceived as a whole and the same element within different pictures are perceived differently (post #2, arrows and intervals -a,b, at the attachment).
2. Only small part of objects, which are placed within field of vision, are perceived at the time by attention.
3. The most important – direction of movement is perceived by eye as shifting to the closest next position despite direction of movement.
I’m going to recall a little about construction of eye, which I completely forgot. And then add my notion about the motion in universe generally and try to conclude what’s the reason for the phenomenon, touched in this thread, so, please, let’s not generalize conclusions beforehand.
Regards,
Zeroca.

[zeroca]

I revised slightly the construction of eye and found some interesting material below for our need, but couldn’t find any explanation for our phenomenon (I chose only interesting for me anatomical and physiological points; will mix them below without systematization yet, and try to be as brief and rough as can, because the more facts and explanations, the more it becomes sour to digest):

1. The influence of light, coming (emanated or reflected from object) is the basis for vision (i.e. no light, no vision of object).
2. Influence of stream of light beam is perceived not directly by cone and rod cells, but through photochemical processes (i.e. light stimulates photochemical processes in cone and rod cells, which afterwards is conducted to cortical centers).
3. Each point of outward object makes separate feeling within elements of retina (for people who isn’t familiar with anatomy of eye – retina is the back part of eyeball – the first stage for visual perception; it consists of two different kinds of receptors: 1.cone cells, and 2.rod cells; To say roughly, the first – for feeling of color, the second – for feeling of intensity of light only) The quantity of cone cells is maximal within yellow spot (macula lutea) which is gathering of mainly cone cells on the retina (almost central part of the latter, and neighboring mentioned in previous posts “blind point”, where optic nerve comes out on retina) and presents itself a material substrate for “central vision” (see below).
4. Combination, synthesis of these separate feelings afterwards in cerebral occipital cortex makes precise reflection of surfaces with their entire particular feature.
5. Visual analyzer (the way from retina up to central occipital part) consists of three parts:
--------1. Perceptive – retina with its physiological mechanisms.
--------2. Conductive – nervous opticus, chiasma opticus, tractus opticus (see picture below, 1,4,5 respectively).
--------3. Sub-cortical centers – lateral geniculate nucleus, optic radiation, and cortical visual centers (8, and the rest - parts of occipital cortex)..
6. The field of vision can be divided into two parts:
-Central (carried out by yellow spot, which presents the gathering of maximal quantity of cone cells) – it’s characterized with the ability to distinguish form and small parts of objects;
-Peripheral (carried out mainly by the rest of yellow spot parts of retina, which is characterized with lessening of quantity of cone cells and presents mainly the gathering of rod cells, the quantity of those is gradually lessening peripherally as well) – acuteness of peripheral vision is considerably lower, then of central one, and it serves mainly for orientational in 3D space purposes.

Will be continued…
P.s. the picture is taken from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system
A rough scetch of retina is made by me...