Changed lines 12-13 from:
to:
* "Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone" from Applied Cognitive Psychology
Added lines 57-58:
See discussion in Block and Tye.
Changed lines 8-12 from:
* Daniel Simons & Ron Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. In ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'' 9: 16-20.
* Christof Koch & Naotsugu Tsuchiya, Attention and Consciousness: Two Distinct Brain Processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2007) 11, 16-22
Chris Mole, “Attention in the Absence of Consciousness?” forthcoming in Trends in Cognitive Sciences
* Chris Mole, “Attention and Consciousness”, Journal of Consciousness Studies.
to:
* Daniel Simons & Ron Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'' 9: 16-20.
* Christof Koch & Naotsugu Tsuchiya (2007). Attention and Consciousness: Two Distinct Brain Processes. ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'' 11:16-22.
* Christopher Mole (2008). Attention in the Absence of Consciousness? Trends in Cognitive Science 12 (2):44.
* Christopher Mole (2008). Attention and Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (4):86-104.
Changed line 8 from:
* Daniel Simons & Ron Rensink, Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9: 16-20. 2005
to:
* Daniel Simons & Ron Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. In ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'' 9: 16-20.
Changed lines 61-62 from:
* Tye's reply: Information about the orientation was represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
to:
* Tye's reply: Information about the orientation was represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation of each of the rectangle.
Changed lines 39-40 from:
** Reply - The content of representations can be less specific.
to:
** Reply - Visual representations can leave things out by ''underrepresenting'' and ''misrepresenting''.
Changed line 38 from:
# our visual experience does not seem to have gaps.
to:
# if we only see what we attend to our visual experience will have gaps.
Changed lines 59-60 from:
Tye: Information about the orientation was represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
to:
* Results: Bad performance for the first task; near 100% correct for the other two.
* Lamme: The sparse theory is wrong. The role of attention is to get conscious information into (globally accessible) stable working memory.
* Tye's reply: Information about the orientation was represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
Changed line 38 from:
# Our visual experience does not seem to have gaps.
to:
# our visual experience does not seem to have gaps.
Changed lines 32-36 from:
The proposal is counter-intuitive, because normally we think we see more than what we focus our attention on. Why?
# We could have attended to whatever we want in the visual field.
** Reply - Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
# Our visual experiences do not seem to have gaps.
to:
The proposal is counter-intuitive. We normally think we see more than what we focus our attention on because:
# it ''seems'' to us that we see all the details.
** Reply - But [[VisualIllusions|appearance can be deceptive]].
# we can attend to any area of the visual field and report what we see.
** Reply - But it might be a case of the refrigerator light illusion.
# Our visual experience does not seem to have gaps.
Changed line 15 from:
* Observers often failed to notice large changes to the visual scene.
to:
* Change blindness - Failure to notice large changes to the visual scene.
Changed lines 18-19 from:
** inattentional ''blindness'' vs ''inaccessibility''
to:
** ''blindness'' vs ''inaccessibility''
* Inattentional blindness - Failure to notice prominent items in the visual scene.
Changed lines 70-73 from:
Tye objects to (b) but not (a).
to:
Tye objects to (b) but not (a).
Discuss: But how can (b) be true without (a) being true?
Changed lines 56-57 from:
Information about the orientation is represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
to:
Tye: Information about the orientation was represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
Added lines 56-57:
Information about the orientation is represented in the visual system. But it does not follow that we were consciously aware of the orientation.
Changed lines 31-33 from:
The proposal is counter-intuitive, because:
# We could report and attend to whatever we want in the visual field.
to:
The proposal is counter-intuitive, because normally we think we see more than what we focus our attention on. Why?
# We could have attended to whatever we want in the visual field.
Deleted lines 2-3:
media:changeblindness-couple.gif
Added lines 3-4:
media:changeblindness-couple.gif
Changed lines 17-19 from:
to:
* Tye's question - Do subjects (consciously) ''see'' the items that have changed?
** inattentional ''blindness'' vs ''inaccessibility''
Changed lines 48-50 from:
* Tye's question - Do subjects (consciously) ''see'' the items that have changed?
** inattentional ''blindness'' vs ''inaccessibility''
to:
Changed line 6 from:
* [Recommended] Ned Block (2007). Consciousness, Accessibility and the Mesh between Psychology and Neuroscience. In ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30'', pp. 481-548.
to:
* [Recommended] Ned Block (2007). Consciousness, Accessibility and the Mesh between Psychology and Neuroscience. In ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30'', pp. 481-548. [[http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Block_BBS.pdf|link]]
Added lines 20-21:
Relevance - the nature of consciousness, connection to attention.
Added lines 61-62:
According to Dretske, (a) we know on the basis of how the bricks look to us that none of them are blue or tilted. And ... (b)
Changed lines 65-67 from:
to:
Tye objects to (b) but not (a).
Added line 7:
* [Recommended] Fred Dretske (2007). What Change Blindness Teaches About Consciousness. ''Philosophical Perspectives'' 21 (1):215–220.
Changed lines 60-61 from:
to:
@@@It was, in part, the way Sam looked to you that told you that none of the bricks were blue or tilted.@@@
[[Category.Mind]]
Changed lines 54-59 from:
media:dretske-bricks.jpg
media:dretske-bricks-2.jpg
to:
Can you notice the difference between the two:
media:dretske-bricks.jpg
[[media:dretske-bricks-2.jpg|you would if the extra brick looks like this]]
Changed lines 54-55 from:
to:
media:dretske-bricks.jpg
media:dretske-bricks-2.jpg
Added line 6:
* [Recommended] Ned Block (2007). Consciousness, Accessibility and the Mesh between Psychology and Neuroscience. In ''Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30'', pp. 481-548.
Changed lines 43-44 from:
to:
** inattentional ''blindness'' vs ''inaccessibility''
Changed lines 48-49 from:
to:
Changed line 28 from:
** Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
to:
** Reply - Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
Changed lines 30-31 from:
** The content of representations can be less specific.
to:
** Reply - The content of representations can be less specific.
Changed line 39 from:
Hold on. The different cases might have different explanations.
to:
Note - The different cases might have different explanations.
Changed lines 18-19 from:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers (the sparse position):
to:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers (the sparse theory):
Changed lines 44-45 from:
!!Against the sparse position
to:
!!Against the sparse theory
Changed lines 11-12 from:
to:
Added lines 16-17:
Changed lines 16-17 from:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers:
to:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers (the sparse position):
Changed lines 42-43 from:
to:
!!Against the sparse position
!!!Landman et. al.
!!!Dretske
Changed lines 23-24 from:
The proposal is counter-intuitive.
to:
The proposal is counter-intuitive, because:
Changed lines 37-39 from:
Unitary explanation?
* The different cases might have different explanations.
to:
Hold on. The different cases might have different explanations.
Added line 39:
* Flicker cases might be different.
Changed lines 25-27 from:
* We could report and attend to whatever we want in the visual field.
* Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
to:
# We could report and attend to whatever we want in the visual field.
** Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
# Our visual experiences do not seem to have gaps.
** The content of representations can be less specific.
Changed lines 14-15 from:
* [[ChangeBlindnessExamples]]
to:
* [[ChangeBlindnessExamples]] - flicker, slow changes, swaps
Added lines 35-42:
Unitary explanation?
* The different cases might have different explanations.
* Slow changes might be a failure of memory.
* Tye's question - Do subjects (consciously) ''see'' the items that have changed?
Changed line 19 from:
# We see only the items we pay attention to.
to:
# We see only those things we pay attention to.
Changed lines 23-24 from:
The proposal is counter-intuitive
to:
The proposal is counter-intuitive.
* We could report and attend to whatever we want in the visual field.
* Is this a case of the refrigerator light illusion?
Added line 19:
# We see only the items we pay attention to.
Added lines 23-24:
The proposal is counter-intuitive
Changed lines 16-17 from:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers -
to:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers:
Changed lines 16-17 from:
Why is that the case? A proposal -
to:
Why is that the case? According to some psychologists and philosophers -
Changed lines 13-23 from:
Observers often failed to notice large changes to pictures that were made during an eye movement
* 50% percent of observers failed to notice when two cowboys sitting on a bench exchanged heads.
* Most observers do not notice that the actor in a movie has changed during a shift in camera position, e.g. the person in a conversation has been replaced.
[[ChangeBlindnessExamples]]
!!The sparse explanation
Change blindness exists because visual representations are sparse, incomplete, or non-existent.
to:
* Observers often failed to notice large changes to the visual scene.
* [[ChangeBlindnessExamples]]
Why is that the case? A proposal -
# We do not see the changes.
# We think we see everything in the visual field, but it is an illusion.
# Our visual experience is much sparser than is commonly supposed.
Changed line 5 from:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [local:tye-changeblindness.pdf]
to:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [intranet:tye-changeblindness.pdf]
Changed line 5 from:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [copy will be on reserve in dept library; see also amazon and google books]
to:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [local:tye-changeblindness.pdf]
Added lines 18-19:
[[ChangeBlindnessExamples]]
Changed line 5 from:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [copy on reserve in dept library; see also
to:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [copy will be on reserve in dept library; see also amazon and google books]
Added line 5:
* [Required] Tye (2009) ''Consciousness Revisted'' MIT Press. Ch.7. [copy on reserve in dept library; see also
Added lines 17-27:
!!The sparse explanation
Change blindness exists because visual representations are sparse, incomplete, or non-existent.
Simons and Rensink: Must rule out these alternatives:
# Complete representations exist, but decayed before change perception.
# Complete representations exist, but not accessible to change detection mechanisms.
# Complete representations exist, but not the right form for change detection (same as above?)
# Complete representations exist, but change detection processes have not been engaged (even though they could have).
Added lines 10-16:
!!What it is
Observers often failed to notice large changes to pictures that were made during an eye movement
* 50% percent of observers failed to notice when two cowboys sitting on a bench exchanged heads.
* Most observers do not notice that the actor in a movie has changed during a shift in camera position, e.g. the person in a conversation has been replaced.
Changed lines 1-2 from:
to:
!Change Blindness
!!Readings
* Daniel Simons & Ron Rensink, Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9: 16-20. 2005
* Christof Koch & Naotsugu Tsuchiya, Attention and Consciousness: Two Distinct Brain Processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2007) 11, 16-22
* Chris Mole, “Attention in the Absence of Consciousness?” forthcoming in Trends in Cognitive Sciences
* Chris Mole, “Attention and Consciousness”, Journal of Consciousness Studies.