GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

< Abstract
< First experiments
< Second experiments

So, in conclusion, what does it all mean? Well, the problem comes down to recognition. In order to know what you know about what you see, you must be aware of its position in space. If you see an upside down object, then will you be able to know what it is? Well, if it is a common object, then yes, you will know that it is upside down as fast as you would know it was upright. But in order to know that it is upside down, you actually have to know what it is. You can try if you like to convince me, but so far I am not convinced that it is ever possible to know that something is upside down without first knowing what it is. Some flowers are like this. Flowers can face the sky or face the ground and everything in between. You know it’s a flower, but seeing it in its normal orientation may help you identify it more accurately. This in summary seems to be what I have found. When you see a common object you are able to identify it at its basic structural level very quickly (e.g., a flower) and independently of its position in space (as long as the structure can be obtained). Following this, once you know roughly what it is, you can then determine its position space. Following this you can begin to look for particular features that distinguish that object from similar objects.

In final conclusion, it seems that objects must be arranged in mental space in various dimensions. The one dimension I have looked at is shape, and it seems that objects are represented according to norms. For example, imagine a chair. If you then see a chair that looks nothing like what you just imagined, then it will take you longer to recognise it as a chair. The more similar what you see is to what you imagine you are seeing, the faster you will identify it as what you think you are seeing. The better you are at seeing reality, the more accurate your theories of reality will be, and the better your theories of reality are, the more accurately you will see reality for what it really is. And no one can see perfectly, so thankfully the focus on the telescope is adjustable. Does that make sense?

Ian