Great answer!

>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.

>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.

I agree that imperceptible would have been a better choice.

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).

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?

>more accurate

Yes but it's a distinction that isn't necessary. We already know the person has a visible face so by saying invisible the author is accurately and efficiently describing what's happening. That's entirely appropriate communication.

It's not completely different. We don't see everything around us ever.

The use of invisible accurately describes our inability to see things the brain decides aren't important.

I got a notification for a comment but can't seem to find it. Do you mind if I dm you?

Now you're talking about a different kind of neuroplasticity. Structural neuroplasticity encompasses the types of changes we see when new pathways are built like when you learn to ride a bike or learn a new language. The type of bike you learn to ride or the language you choose to learn won't make any physical difference to the brain; it's the learning of a new skill that causes the change, not the topic so to speak. If we don't continue to use the new skill the pathway is pruned.

Beliefs are different. We develop them from experiences and how we feel about them. They are the product of thought, not a physical thing.

But the brain doesn't change when you change your beliefs, and neither does the nervous system. We can see different neural activity but the mechanism that creates that activity doesn't change.

Imagine the brain is a DJ's beat box. Different thinking would be like a different song being played but the beat box doesn't change.

It's about understanding the difference between the mind and the brain.

Think of it like a train and its cargo. The tracks, the engine and the boxcars take the cargo from station to station. You can change the train by swapping out the engine, changing the order or location of stations and still deliver the same cargo. Alternatively you can have identical trains travelling the same route yet carry different cargo.

>through neuroplasticity our brains are all capable of changing based on our experiences (including our mental experiences/how we process experiences in our brains.)

Neuroplasticity doesn't work like that.

Neuroplasticity is defined as the ability of the nervous system to change its activity in response to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, functions, or connections after injuries, such as a stroke or traumatic brain injury

It's probably more accurate to say that the combined influence of genetics, hormones, environment and experiences are collectively responsible for our beliefs. People with similar biological influences (genetics & hormones) will likely have a similar mindset which will affect perception and, in turn, their beliefs.

Similar thing happened when I was having a c-section.

Better than getting an epidural for a c-section and have it not work. It only numbed part of my skin, not underlying tissue. It felt like someone was using a blowtorch to get my baby out.

I can concur. I would get excruciating electric shocks coursing down my arm leaving it paralysed for a few seconds whenever my arm would swing backwards. I had to get help getting dressed and even pulling my pants up after the toilet. My Dr didn't even suggest pt or medication. I just had to wait it out. Took 2 years to defrost.

>crazy qanon and also uber leftists posts

You forgot the alt-right...

>You are more likely to marry, be friends with, get along with, etc people who have similar interests and appearances to your own. This may sound like common sense but for a long time people assumed that “oppposites attract”

>This principle holds true in literally every single society we have studied ever. Even primitive societies hold true to this. My favorite explanation for this is that there’s less cognitive work involved in meeting similar people and thus you’re able to move through beginning stages of a relationship much sooner.

I put it down to the familiarity principle which states people tend to develop a preference for what's familiar so people will automatically feel a person is more familiar if they have features and traits they recognise in themselves.

>You know the least helpful, most anti-social, least interested in long term commitments, and least healthy people in the world? A lot of them aren't married and don't have children! People like this also develop dementia!

What's your source for this?

I think this study just shows that lonely & unhappy people are more likely to develop dementia. If a person is content to be alone then I believe this correlation would disappear.

What perception are you talking about?

Google also thinks planaria are rodents