Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PME Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 29 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 5, 2007 2:45:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 5, 2007 3:03:18 AM PDT
goomyz says:
The film states that (the Peruvian Indians) could not see the Spanish ships when they first arrived because they had no prior knowledge of any such things existing. They could see the ripples in the ocean or something like that but at first not the ships. Based on what?

What are boats made of? Did the Indians not know about "wood" or "cloth"? Maybe...MAYBE...this theory could mean something IF say, Spaniards had arrived in say, a helicopter. That would probably freak the natives out...but no, cuz they'd probably be able to see and hear the choppers. I don't know.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2007 4:59:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 27, 2007 5:00:28 PM PDT
H. Sapiens says:
Yes, this particular story in the film is one of the most ridiculous things put forth. Human babies, for example, are unfamiliar with EVERYTHING in this world when they enter it, yet (if their eyesight is unimpaired) they eagerly watch new objects and reach out to explore them with great enthusiasm. Peruvian "Indians" from the 16th Century would have had no trouble seeing a giant ship sail into their coves. In fact, they could not have missed it!

What is suggested in the film on this subject (and many others) is utter bunk.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 16, 2007 2:25:21 AM PDT
There's a good article on this in the Forean Times ("Questioning Perceptual Blindness", Feb 2007). You can find it online. Yup, the story is complete garbage.

http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html

There are, in fact, some great conditions in which you can miss amazing things (e.g., change blindness; inattentional blindness). Check out Dan Simon's (Univ. Illinois) website for some great demos.

The film makers are content to distort and fabricate all sorts of things. For some reason the sheep... err.. I mean the masses... love this garbage.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2007 4:46:42 AM PST
maybe...MAYBE...that peruvian indian story is a metaphor rather than a theory.

the title "...down the rabbit hole" is a clue. lewis carroll wrote the book ('alice in wonderland' 1865). jefferson airplane did the lyrics ('white rabbit' 1967).

it ain't about facts. it's about endless possibilities.

i recommend that goomyz, homo s. and david p. read that book, listen to those lyrics, (re)visit the quantum edition (300 minutes total). don't get stuck on 'factoids', pay attention to the message & possibilities.

ultimately, you decide how far you want to go into the rabbit hole. stick to the familiar 'factoids' or delve into the quantum (a proven yet unfamiliar science).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2007 10:02:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2007 10:04:38 PM PST
T. JORGENSON says:
Ah. The thing about not being able to see the ships:

If a blind person, blind from birth, is suddenly given their sight back, they don't know what anything looks like...they dont know how a corner looks, or why the sun shadow is such as it is on an object. They can SEE everything, they just can't know what it is...their brain doesn't know an edge of an object from an edge of color, for example. Until your brain puts it together into a recognized thing ( "Oh, it's a yellow toaster.") it is just a ground of colors. They wouldn't have been able to see that the ship's shape was a positive against a background rather than a background
hidden by edges of other colors. They would not have know that sails are cloth until it was explained to them. After the idea of a hanging cloth was comprehended, they could see that it was, indeed, hanging cloth. Slowly the ship would come into being, not because they could suddenly, physically, see the ship, but because they could see it AS a ship.

Mull it over, the claim's truth becomes apparent.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2007 7:20:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2007 7:24:04 PM PST
A. Pawli says:
Well stated, Jorgenson.
Just as a cat brought up in an environment filled with horizontal obstructions (levels or platforms) but no/few verticles (walls) has toruble when introduced to an environment with walls (and I expect vice versa). Or when peoples without experience with modern technologies are first shown a film, the only thing they understand from it is that there was an image of a chicken. Nothing about the activites from one scene to another being connected to tell a series of events (which were mostly unrelated to the chicken). It (film communication) is an experience out of their perceptual experience (curse me but I can't recall the sources from psych classes years passed. Perhaps someone else can to verify to future readers that I'm not just making stuff up).
And human infants percieve their environments and watch them so closely becasue they are trying to mack sense of them. They perceive, but do not yet comprehend. They may hear a loud, alarming noise. It will be many months before they can comprehend the notion that it comes from a moving, nonsentient object that people use as tools to moves hurt people around (called an ambulence). They dont hear an ambulence. They hear a noise. The indians didn't see a ship. They saw an unidentifiable thing.
And the writers and directer's didn't make a false claim. They made an unclearly communicated and possibly intentionally misdirecting claim.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2008 7:28:58 AM PDT
S. Shine says:
The other day i looked through a telescope with an extreme magnification for the first time. At one point during the night I was told to look through the lens to view a galaxy. I looked through and tried to focus the lens but I couldn't see anything. Then someone told me what the galaxy was supposed to look like; a gray cloud with arms outstretched. All of a sudden I saw it. I had been looking straight at it the whole time, but with no prior knowledge of what I was supposed to be seeing, I could not see it. Just as the Indians had been looking at that ship and not seeing it. The brain is a mysterious thing, when we don't know what we are seeing, we can't process that information.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 22, 2008 1:44:27 PM PDT
Walter Five says:
Sure we can. When Galileo used his telescope and saw a moon revolving around another planet, he knew exactly what he was looking at, and realized its implications!

You take the so-called Cargo Cults of the South Pacific. They didn't know what air planes *were*, or how they flew, but they recognized them when the passed overhead, and made models of them to try and bring them back. They saw the planes. The Indigenous peoples saw the ships. It's our *assumption* that they didn't know what they were seeing, and you know what happens when you assume, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2008 6:03:28 AM PDT
Agreement. I can see something I don't understand. I may not react to it, run over and try to touch it, but I see it, and understand it exists.

As you say, it's the movie author's assumption the people saw the ship,and yet didn't.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2008 6:07:40 AM PDT
You SAW the galaxy, you didn't LABEL the galaxy. If someone said, "Oh, look at the finch!" I might look around in puzzlement. But if they said, "Oh, look at the bird!" I'd understand. I SAW the bird. I just didn't know its LABEL. I didn't ignore it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2008 8:51:46 AM PDT
Elliot Cross says:
"Until your brain puts it together into a recognized thing..."

Yeah, yeah, the synthesis of the manifold of intuition in the imagination. Too bad people never get so far with Kant as to steal his synthesis of apperception or synthesis of understanding.

Man, imagine if the New Agers got hold of Kant's transcendental aesthetic - that would blow their minds... They wouldn't understand it of course, but they'd think they did. "If space is mind dependent that means we can teleport!"

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2009 10:59:19 PM PDT
I'm reading several reviews to this What the bleep series and it makes me feel bad to discover that this is just propaganda for a kind of cult or a new age church, I thought they were divulging science. Well to the point, I'm a mexican so this is my contribution, when the Spaniards arrived to Veracruz onboard their big ships, the aztecs saw them, they went running back to Mexico-Tenochtitlan, hundreds of miles, to report the sighting to Moctezuma II, a kind of UFO sighting for them back then, and described the ships as big floating houses. So there you have it, the aztecs did see the ships and this movie, book it's just misinformation, propaganda. If you want to read about quantum mechanis buy the books of Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne, Alan Guth, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2009 12:57:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 28, 2009 1:04:57 PM PDT
It's, um, really something the way this JZ "Ms Ramtha" Knight inserted herself side by side with Andrew Newberg and other respected specialists, who have done good work in their fields, and actually contributed to our knowledge at the frontiers of modern understanding. That movie ...

Years ago I read "The True History of the Conquest of New Spain" by Bernal Diaz, written in the 1500's. Diaz was one of Cortez' officers in the Conquest -- an educated man, and eyewitness-participant in events.

(Cortez was apparently a devious manipulator who twisted facts to enrich and glorify himself at the expense of others, including his own men; and cover for his brutal abuses and crimes. Diaz' account is very credible because it fits well with various facts that tend to independently contradict Cortez' various statements.)

From Diaz' book, we learn (as I recall) some things that probably underlie the distortion presented in "What the Bleep" (here attributed to Peruvian Indians ... but this all took place off Mexico's Atlantic/Gulf coast, actually).

The Indians of Mexico apparently did not have ocean-going ships, and spoke of the Spaniards' ships as "floating islands." In this sense, they did not see "ships" per se. (They'd never seen horses before either, and called them [as translated] "god-dogs.")

Metal armor and battle gear were also unknown to the Indians (though they had a native metallurgy craft). In war they used blades of volcanic glass, easily shattered and destroyed in battle as the Spaniards found. Their "armor" was made of cotton (maybe more like pads used in martial art training, than armor), and could be run through by metal blades.

Common convention: we "see" what we expect to see. When confronted with something for which we lack a concept or precedent -- "if it had been a snake it would have bitten me." There's a basis for that in what we know from perceptual psychology. The book "Psychology of Consciousness" by Ornstein gives a readable, enjoyable discussion of some remarkable experimental evidence about this phenomenon.

So in a sense, the Indians weren't able to see the ships -- but not in the sensationalistic sense of that obnoxious "What the Bleep ..." film. It was merely a case of: the Indians had no concept of ships to perceive them AS SUCH, and so didn't recognize or "see" them as ships.

Carlos Santillan's post (just above mine) has it right; and his UFO analogy is a good one, I think.

Posted on Feb 9, 2010 1:44:35 PM PST
Years ago when I was in college, I was lucky enough to secure a slot in Tony Bourgeois' class. He was a tenured rpof at Texas A

Posted on Feb 16, 2010 2:08:04 PM PST
Michael R says:
This was a great movie. People are always trying to dis-prove it, because thats what people love to do. If they can find one thing they dont understand and make it seem that they know the answer, They dont hesitate to tell everyone "This is not even real, this is wrong....because such and such" If you dont understand what most ppl are saying here, dont comment as if you do. I think (T. Jorenson) says it best.

"If a blind person, blind from birth, is suddenly given their sight back, they don't know what anything looks like...they dont know how a corner looks, or why the sun shadow is such as it is on an object. They can SEE everything, they just can't know what it is...their brain doesn't know an edge of an object from an edge of color, for example. Until your brain puts it together into a recognized thing ( "Oh, it's a yellow toaster.") it is just a ground of colors. They wouldn't have been able to see that the ship's shape was a positive against a background rather than a background
hidden by edges of other colors. They would not have know that sails are cloth until it was explained to them. After the idea of a hanging cloth was comprehended, they could see that it was, indeed, hanging cloth. Slowly the ship would come into being, not because they could suddenly, physically, see the ship, but because they could see it AS a ship.

Mull it over, the claim's truth becomes apparent."

Great discussion!

Posted on Feb 23, 2010 2:49:32 PM PST
Biran Sefar says:
While perception is very much a neuro-chemical process, it in no way can possibly supersede the basic laws of reality. The conquistadors were the first Europeans the natives saw; are we really going to think that, because the natives had never seen white people before, the Conquistadors were, for all practical purposes, invisible? Of course, they saw the ships...they just didn't know what they were.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2010 11:43:24 AM PDT
Let me give you another example... When the Spanish Conquerers came to America, riding their Horses and encountered the Indians, the Indians thought that they were looking at one MANIMAL. They had never seen a Horse before and never thought of the concept of riding an animal. Of course it wasn't long before the Horses escaped and the Indians tamed and raised them.
It is true that if you don't have a context for something it is hard to percieve and understand it. Remember when you were a kid and an adult something unfamiliar and you wondered what in the world it meant? That's context.

Posted on Aug 9, 2010 8:24:53 AM PDT
Our brain is a pattern recognition machine. Make an experience: look to the tv noise for some time, and your brain will start to recognize some forms from there. It is like optical illusions of hidden objects in landscapes or noisy figures.

I think the indians were looking to the ships when they were very far away, close to the sea horizon. With the noise (heat distortion in the air, fog, waves, etc.) they were at first unable to recognize some object different then a rock or the strange water movement in the sea. But their "xaman" got curious about it, and, after observing several times (like the optical illusion tricks) he or she was able to see the strange objects, and told the others.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2010 7:04:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2010 7:08:13 PM PST
When an artist draws an object, he or she sees more details as the drawing progresses. Details that were quite literally INVISIBLE before the drawing began. The concept that something right before your eyes can be invisible is not hard to believe at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2010 7:09:11 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 14, 2010 7:16:58 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 14, 2011 12:48:56 AM PDT
johanan9 says:
Don't you think that the native people had cloth, hanging, or otherwise?

Johanan

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 4:36:27 AM PDT
How would someone. hunders of years after an event that they had no participation in, know what the natives saw or did not see? If that were the case, we would never see anything new. It doesn't make sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2012 1:25:51 PM PDT
Interesting comments based upon ones beliefs. As for me I totally believe this. In personal development we learn that "we all see and experience the world not as it is, but as we are".

Posted on Mar 6, 2013 10:28:50 PM PST
Puck90 says:
1)Did the Indians have canoes or other boats?
2) I was wondering who the Bond movie villainess was until the end when I found out she was the Ramtha lady.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2013 5:51:58 PM PDT
so, maybe the moon is a bustling metropolis, but it is so far out from ANYTHING we can even imagine, we just don't see it!
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  25
Total posts:  29
Initial post:  Aug 5, 2007
Latest post:  May 2, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions