“The differences between Perky’s findings and Dijkstra’s could be entirely due to differences in their procedures. But they also hint at another possibility: that we could be perceiving the world differently than our ancestors did” (Saplakoglu, 2023). This concomitant Perky’s “its cognate forms”, has application to research memos and the “pe<a|r>ky effect”, wherein “Perky’s conclusion was that when our perception of something matches what we know we are imagining, we will assume it is imaginary” (Saplakoglu, 2023). If the signal passes the threshold, the brain thinks it’s real; if it doesn’t, the brain thinks it’s imagined.
They’ve done a great job, in my opinion, of taking an issue that philosophers have been debating about for centuries and defining models with predictable outcomes and testing them.
Thomas Naselaris, University of Minnesota
Such a system works well most of the time because imagined signals are typically weak. But if an imagined signal is strong enough to cross the threshold, the brain takes it for reality.
snap, crackle, pop,
[this has effect in flow state]
flow is measurable with information as way flows…
biology is better manager of reactor
chess function
[[ Oh dear friends, do not fret… ]]
greater dimensional space, yet [[cu[r]sor]solved chess]
[r]=I
FRET