Here's interesting dialectic w. psycho subjectivist ("neuro-scientist") on sense-perception and how it works....

Below-copied by ap first published at comments, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015...l#comment-form

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reason, Senses Are Two Separate Things
(Apollonian, 7 Dec 15)

Stevie, psycho schizoid moron and "neuro-scientist," I doubt u actually work in any legitimate business, psychotic schizoid liar, shill, and moron as u are.

But u need to figure-out u have (a) the mind/intellect/consciousness/reason which integrates (b) the material provided by the senses.

The senses are organs which function automatically. Perceptions then are formed in accord w. the mental programming and handling of the sense material.

But the senses act in automatic, reflexive manner, necessarily in accord w. stimuli of events of reality, obviously, PERIOD.

Only the mind can fool itself--which is what's happening w. u, sucker, psycho schizoid shill and liar for ZOG and Obola, ho ho ho ho

---------------below-copied in response to above-------------------------

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:08 PM

The longer you go after being clearly refuted like this, the more of ****tard you look like to you "fans".

Your eyes tell your brain that the picture is moving.

Nothing is moving.

The illusion fooled your EYES.

(drops mic...)

---------------Below-copied by ap in response to above--------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 9:10 PM

(a) Only the mind can fool itself.

(b) The senses CANNOT be fooled, anymore than hair can be fooled, or a leg or arm, or knee, or elbow can be fooled--it isn't the body's function to be fooled or not, ONLY the mind/reason/intellect.

-------------------------below-copied in response to above------------------

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:16 PM

I mean apply it to the illusion above considering the literature I cited.

Explain why the illusion above induces motion perception considering retinal lateral inhibition. Pretty simple question!

--------------------below in response to above-----------------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 9:23 PM

U haven't demonstrated the truth of the "...illusion above induces motion perception considering retinal lateral inhibition."

For ur quoted sentence here MAKES NO SENSE. An "illusion" cannot "induce motion perception."

Stevie: u gotta realize u're sadly deluded and probably to pt. of serious psychosis. U're un-questionably schizoid as I noted, not capable of relating abstractions w. perceptions/concretes--as we observed back when u obsessively asked about "consent" being given by the people to "conspirators," u not saying what particular conspiracy u were talking about, ho ho ho ho

-----------------------below in response to above---------------------

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:29 PM

I wanna give you a hug! You look like such an ass hole! I'm so vicariously embarrassed for you.

Anyone reading this knows that you don't know anything about neuroscience or perception...but you keep insisting that you do!

Even YOU know you're trying to pull all of this out of your ass. I just want to see how sick you are at this point.

So you're saying that you looked at the grid and saw no illusory motion? Is that right?

If you have human eyes, you saw the illusory motion. It's too low in the visual system not to.

Don't forget: you can't BS me - this is my area of study. And for some unknown reason, you picked a fight with me in it.

------------------below in response to above---------------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 9:38 PM

Stevie: "whom the gods would destroy, first they are rendered mad"--as w. hubris. And stevie, my boy, u are quite psychotic, and demonstrated, proven schizoid, as we've seen over and over.

I simply refer back to my note given above at December 7, 2015 at 9:10 PM, ho ho ho ho ho

-------------below in response to another moronic entry of same scum-------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 9:48 PM

Ho ho ho ho--a PERFECT example of the psycho creating his own little reality, ho ho ho ho ho:

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:44 PM
"OK. I'll count this as your conceding defeat."

For the honest reader easily observes I made no "concession" whatsoever, ho hoh o ho

-----------------------------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 9:55 PM

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:44 PM
"And why would I trust your conclusions on anything else?"

Hoho ho ho ho, psycho, a conclusion is evaluated by means of the premises, dumbass--it isn't a matter of "trust," stupid moron scum, ho ho ho ho ho

--------------------below in response to above------------------------------

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:56 PM

OK, game back on.

Do you refute lateral inhibition in the retina?

----------------below in response to above-------------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 10:05 PM

I simply refer back to my note given above at December 7, 2015 at 9:10 PM, ho ho ho ho ho

Regarding above, Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:56 PM
"Do you refute lateral inhibition in the retina?"

I merely reply it's just psycho-babble, utterly meaningless, OBVIOUSLY, ho ho ho hoo

U need to consider u're now hopelessly obsessively beating a dead-horse, sucker, ho ho ho ho (hint: u've already lost, moron).

At this pt. u're just babbling, fool--u need to getting a clue, ho ho ho ho

----------------------------------------

apsterian December 7, 2015 at 10:08 PM

Steve12 December 7, 2015 at 9:58 PM
"And how do refute the links I've provided?"

NEWSFLASH: I never bothered to read them or even clk on them, moron, ho ho ho ho ho--u have to respond to my arguments without spamming stupid, irrelevant crap, dumbass, psycho schizoid "neuro-scientist," ho ho ho ho

-----------------------------------------------

MORE AT SITE LINK, GIVEN ABOVE