Some Interesting Science:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428070237.htm
“Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany recently reported in the journal PLoS ONE that although the physical laws governing object stability are reasonably well represented by the brain, you are a better judge of how objects fall when you are upright than when you lay on your side.”
“We might expect the brain to depend primarily on visual heuristics and assumptions about an object when assessing whether it will fall or not,” says Roland Fleming, now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Giessen. “Surprisingly, however, we find that observers’ judgments of object stability are biased towards the tilt of the body.”
In other words, how we feel our body’s center-of-gravity determines how we perceive an object’s center of gravity. The body does more than carry the head around.
The article points out that while people have great difficulty understanding the actual laws that govern equilibrium; intuitively we pick up an object’s degree of stability instantly. This information is built into our very symmetry which is why I don’t find it coincidental that centralized nervous system and the body’s bilateral symmetry co-evolved so that science can’t say which came first, a bilateral symmetry or the centralization of the nervous system (cephalization). Since in my emotional model a feeling arises from physical memory (unresolved emotion that accretes around the perception of the body’s physical center of gravity, and that this effects a smooth wave function within a body in motion, i.e a “good feeling”) this is why we say something “feels RIGHT” as in upRIGHT. In other words, we can ingest the essence of a thing and we’re still standing and capable of forward motion and therefore the thing feels right. If we can ingest the essence of a thing and keep moving, then the thing is emotionally conductive. Therefore, how physical memory makes us feel, determines whether an object of attraction feels RIGHT.
There are two ways physical memory informs the individual. One is “qualitative,” in other words, the particulars of how it was acquired and this prevents the individual from repeating past negative experiences (or repeating them over and over). In this modality physical memory transposes resistance acquired from past experiences onto the current situation. This would be like an an entrepreneur having caution about investing money into an enterprise and being sensitized to any “red flags” he might perceive in his partner as he ponders the deal. This qualitative function of physical memory evokes the fear memories of denial/pain/collapse/stress. So one could say this cautious state means that perception is skewed toward seeing things as inherently unstable. However, the second modality is a quantitative lump sum of physical memory as an “emotional mass.” So at some point if the deal looks good, (the situation feels conductive enough) the entrepreneur lets go of his attachment to past experiences and commits economic “mass” into the deal and becomes an economic counterbalance (i.e. owns some percentage of the business) to his partner. He’s willing to let go and take the deal on its own merits because he can sense potential energy, i.e. the opportunity to make money. This shift then becomes the predominant perspective of how he looks at the situation and resistance that is encountered is stimulating rather than inhibiting. And the money that is made from the enterprise is “new energy” or wealth. So when a dog projects its physical center-of-gravity into an object of resistance, if the circumstances become conductive enough, i.e. the dog lets go of its attachment to Deep Inner Stress (the last .01% of stress that acts as a critical energy valve) and gives up a familiar frame of reference because the movement of the other being doesn’t remind it of past experiences, but rather the dog feels a pull toward what he perceives as potential energy. When the other individual moves, the dog feels energized rather than destabilized. The dog’s perspective is no longer skewed by the past.
Through this quantitative modality the two individuals can each divine the energetic essence of the other and so a feel a pull toward the other based on the sensing of potential energy. When they are in sync this way, they become emotional counterbalances which induces a state of emotional suspension and in fact, you can see them become very light on their feet in the manner by which they run and play. This state is how new energy, or an emotional bond, is created and we should note that they arrive to this condition in abject defiance of past fear memories of denial/pain/collapse/stress, not to mention in abject defiance of millions of years of built up instincts. So when two dogs meet, the intense spike of a stimulation (i.e. the presence of the other being) is smoothed out into a wave function by each becoming the others emotional counterbalance by way of emotional suspension (either playing or hunting together). The two dogs aren’t figuring out how to get along, and they aren’t being guided by instinct. Rather, they are each feeling according to the universal principle of emotional conductivity how to maximize the pleasure they are experiencing, by becoming the mirror to the other.
“Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany recently reported in the journal PLoS ONE that although the physical laws governing object stability are reasonably well represented by the brain, you are a better judge of how objects fall when you are upright than when you lay on your side.”
Just what we would expect from evolution, and just as we’ve come to expect, your unique take on this has nothing to do with reality. Neither this article nor the actual study (which you clearly haven’t read) support the assertion that “how we feel our body’s center-of-gravity determines how we perceive an object’s center of gravity”
In fact, I wonder if you even read much less understood this article. While you write that “while people have great difficulty understanding the actual laws that govern equilibrium;” the article reads “physical laws governing object stability are reasonably well represented by the brain” Maybe you are simply a careless reader, or your bias prevents you from reading something that negates the claims.
Perhaps you are not familiar with Piaget’s work in this area so were probably dumbfounded and confused by “Since the work of Jean Piaget it has been known that children and adults have difficulty in solving problems involving the physical laws which govern equilibrium, but in everyday life we seem to be quite good at estimating object stability,” It is very common to understand a concept without being able to solve problems around that concept.
While you can try to co-op real science to give your views credibility, funny enough all the basic claims are based on smoke and mirrors:
* a feeling arises from physical memory – Memory resides in the brain. RNA is involved in memory. RNA is physical. The brain is physical. So you are right, though it’s like saying that water is wet, something everybody knows. Though you’d probably say: “the feeling of moisture arises from wetness which elaborates into universal water energy”
* unresolved emotion that accretes around the perception of the body’s physical center of gravity – No evidence and there’s no such thing as a physical center of gravity. The center of gravity is mathematically determined by taking the mean (that’s average to you) forces acting on a body.
* a smooth wave function within a body in motion – Do you have the equation of this wave function? How did you detect this wave? And how do you define ‘smooth’?
“feels RIGHT” as in upRIGHT. – just the type of lousy rationalization we’ve come to expect from you. This is a pathetic argument that could only come from a monoglot.
You are the king of tautologous statements: “Therefore, how physical memory makes us feel, determines whether an object of attraction feels RIGHT.” Which is your way of saying nothing while using a lot of words. All your really said is ‘how something makes us feel is how it makes us feel.’
I am curious. Does “PowerRanger” have a dog?
PowerRanger — I appreciate your comments questioning Kevin’s reasonings and theories and am enjoying the back-and-forth between you. However, I do have a request I’d like to make of you. From my perspective, many of your comments are framed in a way that gives the appearance of an attack. It would be more enjoyable (at least to me) if you could put your observations and objections in a different frame of reference; perhaps showing a bit of deference as in allowing for the possibility that what KB proposes MIGHT be true but then what about this or consider that…something along those lines. In thinking back on the Charlie Rose Brain Series, I always was in awe of the polite tone that was evident throughout the series. Could you mimic that tone here? Thank You for considering my request! 🙂
Christine, I am more than happy to consider your request.