Feudamonia t1_j8fg6hi wrote
Reply to comment by Chris-1235 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
It's not muddled at all. Communication is about effective and efficient conveying of data. There are two possible interpretations of the title - either the person had an invisible face or their face isn't perceived visually. Which would you think is logical?
Chris-1235 t1_j8firvr wrote
I thought that the title was nonsensical, as was their use of the term, because the face was in fact perceived visually, but not by the conscious mind.
walksineternity t1_j8flt47 wrote
Fully agreed with you on this, the title makes no sense. Invisible means something very specific. Maybe the word should have been unnoticeable?
Feudamonia t1_j8fjw61 wrote
We can argue the philosophy of when something becomes perceived or just received by neurons but that's a different conversation. The title posed no comprehension issues for me because the only alternative meaning was illogical (because no one has an invisible face).
relbean t1_j8g1yhs wrote
Just because the alternative meaning is illogical in your mind doesn’t mean the description is accurate. Accuracy is important, why wouldn’t you want to be as precise as possible? Especially when discussing scientific topics.
To me “invisible to the eye” means that the absence of sensory perception happens in the end organ of vision, not the areas of the brain that control consciousness. In reality, the information is visible to the eye. It’s an inaccurate title.
Feudamonia t1_j8g6m20 wrote
>Just because the alternative meaning is illogical in your mind doesn’t mean the description is accurate.
Actually it does. Logic or being logical isn't subjective. We know for a fact that people do not have invisible faces.
Invisible to the eye means the quality of being invisible is determined by the eye rather than it being a physical quality of the object the phrase is referencing.
The title is accurate enough to convey its meaning.
relbean t1_j8g9a3x wrote
It is not accurate enough to convey its meaning because its meaning is that the eye did not perceive the stimulus when in reality the eye did perceive the stimulus and the cerebral cortex did not perceive the stimulus. Those are two separate parts of anatomy and in a scientific discussion that distinction matters a great deal.
Feudamonia t1_j8geu9q wrote
>the eye did not perceive the stimulus when in reality the eye did perceive the stimulus and the cerebral cortex did not perceive the stimulus
You're getting confused between sensation and perception. Sensation occurs when sensory receptors detect sensory stimuli. Perception involves the organization, interpretation, and conscious experience of those sensations.
bkydx t1_j8jkmfj wrote
According to science if something is in sight but your brain is not consciously perceiving then it invisible is the correct term.
The people that are arguing against you probably have more knowledge about invisible super heroes then any sort of science.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments