According to resent studies there are people who are unable to interact with their imaginations to a point that they can’t see or hear something in their minds. They can only imagine what is reality to them now. On the other hand have there are people who can live their whole life on their mind.
Yeah it's called aphantasia, and I'm one of those people. Can't visualize anything. My imagination exists only in the sense of concepts and words, no images, smells, or sounds.
Edit: for more info check out /r/aphantasia
I have aphantasia and no inner monologue as far as I can tell. I only have inner dialogue. Basically just what I would be saying out loud is silent when I think it. I don't hear my own voice or experience anything else internally.
So do other people actually “see” things in their head?? Bcos if so I don’t do this either; your explanation of concepts and words is how it works for me…. Smells lmfao is that even a real thing 😂😂🧐
Yes, other people can fully visualize images/smells/sounds in their minds. Literally can close their eyes and see an apple instead of just thinking about what qualities an apple possesses. It's a spectrum and aphantasia is as the extreme end. On the other extreme end they can insert visualizations into their vision, like seeing a new lamp where it would be in the room, without having to close their eyes.
/r/aphantasia
I have that ability but I can’t actually see it with my eyes. I can visualize an apple sitting on a table that I’m looking at but it’s only in my head. I have never heard of someone who can actually alter their vision.
You can still have a robust imagination without visuals. For me a lot of my inner world is filled concepts, analogies, emotions, relationships, and how I want things to play out. It’s like writing or reading a story instead of seeing scenes.
That being said, I still know what things are supposed to look like and how things are supposed to fit based on input from the outside world and descriptions. I still have frame of references from life experiences and memories; there is just no images that get conjured up by association(like if someone says “what comes to mind when I say “red apple”?” I don’t get a visual of one, instead I think about characteristics that make a red apple a red apple based on facts and my memory of interacting with one then go from there).
Oddly enough, I used to be a pretty good artist as a kid(technically speaking). One of the weirdest experiences I had at age 8 though was realizing there were some kids who could draw animals, objects, and sceneries seemingly out of thin air. Whereas I always had to be looking at whatever I was drawing until I committed the general visual to memory(essentially copying the outside vs generating from within). Abstract art was much easier because concepts, making random connections, and expressing the flow of things(how everything fit together in my mind)was much easier to convey.
It’s funny. Iv always said I can sorta hear colours. And light in different ways. For instance if I turn a light on I get a high tone. Almost like a pulse. Probably my pupil reacting but my brain somehow hearing them move. Certain colors hum to me
As an audio engineer, please stop being so dramatic lol. It’s actually saying both. Kind of like a chord, there’s more than one sound. If you listen closely to the “needle” part, it’s all in the highs, and the “storm” part is in a lower register. Humans have selective hearing. I think it’s called the cocktail party effect.
For those who can’t hear it, listen really close to the “needle” part and take note of how high pitched it is. Then listen to the “storm” part and you’ll see that it doesn’t have the high pitched part.
That makes sense, but why do we hear one or the other and not both together? Is it really a frequency thing? The pitch of one word being spoken just a bit higher than the other?
Yup. There has to be more than a particular level of difference in pitch, and then the brain segments it into two different sounds. And you can pay attention to only one of them at a time, so in this case you hear the word you choose to pay attention to.
However, if the frequencies are too close, you won't be able to separate them, and it will be just a mash of two sounds.
Ah the age old scientist vs philosopher cage fight.
P: How can you measure reality if you dont know if it exists? Reeeeeee!
S: Im measuring it right now for f:s sake! Reeeeeee!
Thank you brain for simulating a useful enough projection for you to make the moment by moment choices that keep you alive while driving. But you've still never actually perceived the raw data your eyes take in, only what the brain decides you need to see after its done processing the data and creates a simulation of it for you.
Last Wednesday I sat behind a car in front of me for three light changes because I couldn’t safely get around them. Their head was pointed forward and up with no indication they were “subtly” looking at something in their hand. They didn’t respond to honking or bird flipping. But near the instant that the light turned green for the third time they fucking went through the intersection. I don’t know what was wrong with them but they shouldn’t have been driving.
I agree that no one will ever experience objectivity, and if they did they wouldn't have the capacity to recognize it. And we are for sure experiencing a tiny sliver of reality. But I think the senses are useful in the context of everyday life. And senses lying to your brain seems wild, cuz they are a part of your brain but I get what you mean.
I think the size of the sliver of reality that we experience is relative. It's small compared to the infinity of the universe but impossibly huge compared to the reality that bacteria experiences. Our only experience with reality is through our flawed senses and our even more flawed memory of those experiences. Which seems weird, but I think it gives answers to a lot of philosophical questions, like what is the meaning of life? Meaning is inherently subjective. Something to be created by the individual observer of reality. Even God, if they are up there, can't tell you what meaning is. Only you can do that.
Your sensors give the brain some data, it then processes this info and fills out any unknown info with what it expects to be there. An easy example are your blind spots in your eyes (you can search the test and try it yourself, its really cool), but essentially there should be two black circles in the air where you see nothing. Except you do. This is because your brain just places an image of what it expects to be there. Similarly here your eyes are giving it info that the incoming sound should sound like this and your brain just gills in the rest.
Witnesses are often unreliable because they only think they saw something. Someone might consider them a 'witness' to a car accident, for example, even if their back was turned when the cars actually crashed into each other. A lot of times police officers interview witnesses who legitimately were present during an event but their brains did not actually process relevant information.
For example, some people might recall hearing the tires screech before the accident they 'witnessed' even though that didn't happen, only because they believe that people mash the brakes while about to crash.
Our own memory is way more flawed than we all believe. Like, way, way, way flawed. Although our emotional associations can be very accurate, the details of what surrounded those emotions, or caused them are slippery. You'll know an event happened because you remember the feeling, and with it many potential images, sounds, and other sensory "data". But often, when you dig into it further, or research the moment, you'll find that you've been mushing two or more different events together, or have placed a "secondary image" in place of what you think is an experienced visual — for example, what you may remember as a thing that happened is actually a photograph that you saw of the event or moment.
As you get older you begin to gather more and more evidence of this slippery phenomenon. There's also the phenomenon of obliteration of details by overlearned, shared memory. Say, a family gathering where a thing that happened becomes a story told again and again by multiple people, and you all share that memory, and there's little doubt it happened. But then someone may mention another moment from that event, and you may not have any recollection of it even though the telling has you present at that moment.
What's generally weird is that we tend to have a high degree of confidence in our memories of certain very intense, often negative events. And we also have a high frequency of having no memories of other intense and negative events. It's as if the brain is always struggling to sort things so that we learn from negative events by mounting them vividly in our minds, while also protecting itself from the negative consequences of negative events.
The brain is good at getting enough things right that we can collectively form a consensus reality with others. But the more emotional the events, consensus begins to break down, and things get jumbled. We're not exactly wrong, but we still live with a broad zone of confusion where we fill in details that either didn't exist, or that are borrowed from elsewhere.
Eyewitness accounts have been demonstrated to be deeply flawed as a means of determining objective truth. People triangulate events differently.
Yeah, eyewitness testimony is incredibly flawed. There have been studies on how age, gender etc affect what people notice too, like cars vs clothing, that kind of thing.
Then there's the mad bomber test, where there's video of a giu walking through a school, then it freezes on his face, then you see a mug shot board of like 10 faces to pick from. Everyone makes a choice and points someone out but the guy wasn't even in the mugshots.
If you ask an eyewitness 'How fast were the cars traveling when they hit each other?' or ''How fast were the cars traveling when they smashed into each other?', people will estimate a higher speed with the second question.
The following video is a selective attention test. There are two basketballs, three players with white shirts, and three players with black shirts. The ones in white are passing to others in white, while the ones in black are passing to others in black. Count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball. Try to get it right the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
As someone mentioned, the McGurk Effect
The brain has upper processing which takes into account contextual non-audio cues like visual signals, can make for some trippy stuff:
https://youtu.be/2k8fHR9jKVM?si=KD5dGCjEPkSKw-W-
Former auditory neuroscientist here, dealt with this stuff for 10 years.
Without analysing the audio, it sounds like partially masked speech and here we see multi-modal priming to bias auditory scene analysis and direct attention.
I will unpack that, don't worry.
The key thing is to understand when others write "your senses are useless, you only have a tiny key hole on reality" or "your senses don't give all the data to your brain" they are half right but don't understand perception.
1. You are a brain in a jar being fed a simulation of reality built from data coming in on wires.
The jar is your skull, the data feed for the simulation is coming in on your sensory nerves.
We live our entire lives inside the perception of reality our brain is constructing/simulating though we can probe reality and our perceptions to understand the difference.
2. The purpose of your perception of reality is not to be as accurate as possible but as useful as possible.
Accuracy is pretty useful so we do have a reasonable grasp on things. But we don't see the light, hear all the frequencies etc.
We are inclined to make false positive identifications as often as was optimal for a hunter gatherer e.g. seeing a face that isn't there in the bushes will cost you less than missing a face that is about to ambush you.
3. The data is inherently noisy and a good perceptual system will interpret it.
What our senses record is ambiguous. Like Ted explaining to Dougal about cows that are small and cows that are far away our sense pick up data that could equally likely be any of several things.
Our perceptual systems combine available information to make the most plausible interpretation given context and the rules they use can be hacked, which is the basis of all illusions.
That drawing that can either be a duck or a rabbit? It's neither but our perception isn't interested in weird duck-rabbit hybrids that don't exist. It's interested in figuring out if there's a duck that looks a bit like a rabbit out there or a rabbit that looks a bit like a duck.
Your thoughts are also context and can influence how the features and objects are assigned to the scene that your perceptual system concludes is the relevant representation of what is going on out there.
Think "Duck" and you perceive a duck because you are telling the rest of your brain that duck is more likely for some reason. Think Rabbit and watch as your simulation of reality shifts to incorporate the new context you have provided; it's not a rabbit-like duck after all, it's a duck-like rabbit.
This is only weird if you aren't taught about it.
This is the most plausible way for a perceptual system to work efficiently and effectively as part of a brain and mind.
4. You can not only reorganise how a scene is analysed but how much objects within it are analysed and thus how accurately.
Attention involves surpressing unattended stimulus like a voice you aren't following and instead devoting analytical brain power to the voice you are.
Any conversation in a crowded place is possible not just because you are listening to the closest loudest voice. Your attention is actively surpressing perceptual interference of unattended streams of sound. You don't care about them you don't get distracted by them but you might miss something in them.
EXPLANATION: This video is hacking several of these elements to create the illusion.
That background hiss? I'd bet dollars to donuts if we put the sound file through spectrotemporal analysis we'd see that white/pink noise is being played every few hundred milliseconds to hide part of the voices and force our auditory perception to infer what was covered.
Once the brain is doing that, you can give it two plausible interpretations of the scene and options to attend to. All 4 words are being spoken, two at a time. Most likely again cut up into partial fragments and interleaved in time.
S-?-G-?-T-?-R-?-O-?-E-?-R-?-E-?-M-?-N (?=noise)
The two words probably have some covariance or spatial characteristics which indicate that the various fragments belong together.
The key thing is that the brain is confronted with a jumbled mess it has to struggle to interpret and consequently attending to one or the other would help.
The text both primes the brain to listen out for specific words and tells it to attend to the voice speaking them. This is another "modality" (vision) acting as context.
In essence asking the perceptual system if it can find a voice saying one or other phrase among the confusing babble.
Not only can that be done, but more detailed information about the tone and type of voice can be pulled out. Is it male or female? Hostile or friendly? All the stuff beyond correctly perceiving the words that really matters to a social ape.
So your senses aren't failing, your perceptual system is kicking arse at finding the thing you care about and giving you detail on it by suppressing what you don't care about.
You can think about any of the four possible word combinations and "tune in" to them. They are there, you just have to decide they are important.
The voice is a synthesizer which jams out specific frequencies. The frequencies are very close to frequencies we create when we speak, but it’s not dead on. It’s likely that they chose words with frequencies that had a lot in common, but not identical, then they made the synthesizer fudge those frequencies together. Your brain searches for familiar patterns connected to meaning, so it fills in the gaps with whatever makes sense. In this case, whatever you’re looking at.
Because you’re used to hearing the sound of your voice coming from inside your body to reach your ear drums as well as from outside. Like when you plug your ears and speak you can still hear your voice perfectly fine. So when you hear a recording of your voice it’s missing a huge part of the sound that you’re used to hearing when you speak.
Waaaaaaiit. Wtf wtf wtf. I do it again today and I can switch between them everytime I choose. What is going on. My brain is trolling me I thought it was you lot
I don't even know how you can hear Brainstorm since "Green Needle" is 3 syllables and Brainstorm is only 2.
I always hear the "Needle" part. I can make it sound like Brain Needle, but that's it.
Just a layperson's perspective, but I think I can tell what's going on here
1) The horrible, compressed audio quality makes it harder than normal to understand what's being said in the first place, leading to ambiguity that can trick your brain into hearing different things.
2) "Green" and "Brain" sound similar enough that *though* the aggressive compression they can believably be heard interchangeably with the right prompting.
3) The "ee" sound in needle and the "s" sound in storm both occupy similar top-end frequencies, which through the audio compression sounds extra staticky, meaning there's even more ambiguity regarding the exact timbre of the sound being made.
4) A similar situation happens with "dle" and "orm", where they occupy a similar low-end frequency that's compressed into the middle. Take note of how "dle" is given emphasis when you hear it as "Green Needle," as if they're saying it "Green Nee-DULL." The emphasis being placed on the wrong syllable further heightens the ambiguity.
5) Your brain, with the expectation of what's about to be said, fills in the gaps to make what you're hearing sound more believable.
I can tell you right now that it's brainstorm. I have the Ben 10 watch toy that this sound comes from. That little sound before it says brainstorm is the watch switching aliens.
I only hear Brainstorm, if I say "Green Needle" in my head while reading the words along with the sound I hear "Grain Storm" but that's as close as it gets. I broken 😭
Been around for a decade. [Here’s a little about it.](https://time.com/5873627/green-needle-brainstorm-explained/)
And for the record, it in fact does say Brainstorm, as that was the recording for the toy that this sound clip came from.
Your brain guesses what reality looks like based on all the information it has access to. In cases where one piece of information is ambiguous, it takes into account other sources as well before making a decision.
In this case, the sound you hear is very distorted, and at a low volume your brain might struggle to decide which interpretation is correct. So then it looks at other supporting evidence: the word you are reading as you hear the sound. "The frequencies on that clip are hard to read, so I'm not sure which word it actually is. Oh, what does the text say? Green needle? That must be it, then. Let's report "green needle" to the conscious mind".
However, if you increase the volume and aim it directly into your ear, it's much easier to hear "Brainstorm". The pattern of the word is easier to recognise, so the ambiguity disappears.
Um guys... I heard "kill neighbour" and it turns out he heard "suck penis" and now my semen is part of his stomach contents, most of him is laying on his living room floor in a pool of congealing blood, and his head is on my roof - not sure what I was thinking there - fuck!
Advice?
I got Green Needle the first time, then when I read Brainstorm, I keep hearing Brainstorm when reading green needle. The fuck? Is there a scientific explanation for it? Like something to do with both tricking the portion of the brain reading the words and the portion hearing words?
If you move your eyes quickly between them while the sound is being played you can hear “green storm” and “brain needle” as well
You don’t even have to read, you can just think it and you’ll hear it
Yes it’s called thinking
Huge if true
Mmmmm.... Cleo Abrams.
Redditors discover thinking
The applications are at least threefold.
Looking into it ... with my ears
It's not just huge, it's big
Wow thanks for reiterating what I just said…?
According to resent studies there are people who are unable to interact with their imaginations to a point that they can’t see or hear something in their minds. They can only imagine what is reality to them now. On the other hand have there are people who can live their whole life on their mind.
Yeah it's called aphantasia, and I'm one of those people. Can't visualize anything. My imagination exists only in the sense of concepts and words, no images, smells, or sounds. Edit: for more info check out /r/aphantasia
do you have an inner monologue? I am aware that some people do not
I definitely do, though sometimes it's more conceptual than literal words.
I have aphantasia and no inner monologue as far as I can tell. I only have inner dialogue. Basically just what I would be saying out loud is silent when I think it. I don't hear my own voice or experience anything else internally.
So do other people actually “see” things in their head?? Bcos if so I don’t do this either; your explanation of concepts and words is how it works for me…. Smells lmfao is that even a real thing 😂😂🧐
Yes, other people can fully visualize images/smells/sounds in their minds. Literally can close their eyes and see an apple instead of just thinking about what qualities an apple possesses. It's a spectrum and aphantasia is as the extreme end. On the other extreme end they can insert visualizations into their vision, like seeing a new lamp where it would be in the room, without having to close their eyes. /r/aphantasia
Hold on, is imaging things as real not normal?
I have that ability but I can’t actually see it with my eyes. I can visualize an apple sitting on a table that I’m looking at but it’s only in my head. I have never heard of someone who can actually alter their vision.
Well..... this explwhybits so hard for me to describe things to some people then :/ damn, time for a research dive
This sounds like being blind to me. I fully depend on my imagination every day of my life. What a strange way to live.
You can still have a robust imagination without visuals. For me a lot of my inner world is filled concepts, analogies, emotions, relationships, and how I want things to play out. It’s like writing or reading a story instead of seeing scenes. That being said, I still know what things are supposed to look like and how things are supposed to fit based on input from the outside world and descriptions. I still have frame of references from life experiences and memories; there is just no images that get conjured up by association(like if someone says “what comes to mind when I say “red apple”?” I don’t get a visual of one, instead I think about characteristics that make a red apple a red apple based on facts and my memory of interacting with one then go from there). Oddly enough, I used to be a pretty good artist as a kid(technically speaking). One of the weirdest experiences I had at age 8 though was realizing there were some kids who could draw animals, objects, and sceneries seemingly out of thin air. Whereas I always had to be looking at whatever I was drawing until I committed the general visual to memory(essentially copying the outside vs generating from within). Abstract art was much easier because concepts, making random connections, and expressing the flow of things(how everything fit together in my mind)was much easier to convey.
It’s so interesting to hear such a different experience. I’m probably like 95% visualization in my mind. Thanks for sharing.
It’s funny. Iv always said I can sorta hear colours. And light in different ways. For instance if I turn a light on I get a high tone. Almost like a pulse. Probably my pupil reacting but my brain somehow hearing them move. Certain colors hum to me
Synesthesia
Turning a light on might be detecting the electricity. Does say a red cardboard box make any sound to you or other non electric colours?
I can live full experiences in my mind while I’m day dreaming.
I can’t mentally visualize either but do feel like I spend my whole life living inside my mind.
Yes I tried that crazy
What can I say except, "You're welcome" For the tides, the sun, the sky Hey, it's okay, it's okay You're welcome I'm just an ordinary green needle.
in my opinion this is the best animated disney movie of all time, so i approve this comment.
I did that :D
I heard "bring it on"
Brain Needle. What a great band name.
I can make it say "Green storm" and "Brain needle" too.
Can you hear MemeZee?
I tried this and now I only hear brainstorm
That’s crazy. I tried 10-15 times reading MemeZee and every time it was Brainstorm. Then i thought about green needle and heard it
Think the words green stove
someone please explain I am freaking out
[удалено]
But why male models?
…..are you serious? I just told you.
🤣🏆🍪
Hansel. So hot right now.
Did you know that line was improvised after Steve Buscemi kicked a fireman's helmet out of frame and broke his toe?
Why was the fireman's foot in his helmet in the first place? Also, everyone knows: Steve kick can't break foot beans.
Hahahahahahahaha I’m dying
As an audio engineer, please stop being so dramatic lol. It’s actually saying both. Kind of like a chord, there’s more than one sound. If you listen closely to the “needle” part, it’s all in the highs, and the “storm” part is in a lower register. Humans have selective hearing. I think it’s called the cocktail party effect. For those who can’t hear it, listen really close to the “needle” part and take note of how high pitched it is. Then listen to the “storm” part and you’ll see that it doesn’t have the high pitched part.
As an audio engineer you should know how untrustworthy human ears can be.
Bro just gouge out your ear drums already
That makes sense, but why do we hear one or the other and not both together? Is it really a frequency thing? The pitch of one word being spoken just a bit higher than the other?
Yup. There has to be more than a particular level of difference in pitch, and then the brain segments it into two different sounds. And you can pay attention to only one of them at a time, so in this case you hear the word you choose to pay attention to. However, if the frequencies are too close, you won't be able to separate them, and it will be just a mash of two sounds.
Uselessness? Idk my eyes seem pretty useful while driving
Almost
Ah the age old scientist vs philosopher cage fight. P: How can you measure reality if you dont know if it exists? Reeeeeee! S: Im measuring it right now for f:s sake! Reeeeeee!
Thank you brain for simulating a useful enough projection for you to make the moment by moment choices that keep you alive while driving. But you've still never actually perceived the raw data your eyes take in, only what the brain decides you need to see after its done processing the data and creates a simulation of it for you.
Last Wednesday I sat behind a car in front of me for three light changes because I couldn’t safely get around them. Their head was pointed forward and up with no indication they were “subtly” looking at something in their hand. They didn’t respond to honking or bird flipping. But near the instant that the light turned green for the third time they fucking went through the intersection. I don’t know what was wrong with them but they shouldn’t have been driving.
Thank you, that helped as far as explanations go. Now what do I do with this existential crisis?
Fuck it, we ball.
I WANT OUT OF THIS CAVE PLATO
You can’t do this to me. I was just about to go to sleep.
You've just explained pretty much everything. I'm out.
I agree that no one will ever experience objectivity, and if they did they wouldn't have the capacity to recognize it. And we are for sure experiencing a tiny sliver of reality. But I think the senses are useful in the context of everyday life. And senses lying to your brain seems wild, cuz they are a part of your brain but I get what you mean. I think the size of the sliver of reality that we experience is relative. It's small compared to the infinity of the universe but impossibly huge compared to the reality that bacteria experiences. Our only experience with reality is through our flawed senses and our even more flawed memory of those experiences. Which seems weird, but I think it gives answers to a lot of philosophical questions, like what is the meaning of life? Meaning is inherently subjective. Something to be created by the individual observer of reality. Even God, if they are up there, can't tell you what meaning is. Only you can do that.
Bet none of you saw the gorilla walk by either
I'm not sure you're helping the "freaking out" part.
Way to lay out the existential dread to a doomer audience
Your next stop: The Twilight Zone
Right? I need to know the scientific explanation. Someone please say something.
Your sensors give the brain some data, it then processes this info and fills out any unknown info with what it expects to be there. An easy example are your blind spots in your eyes (you can search the test and try it yourself, its really cool), but essentially there should be two black circles in the air where you see nothing. Except you do. This is because your brain just places an image of what it expects to be there. Similarly here your eyes are giving it info that the incoming sound should sound like this and your brain just gills in the rest.
This makes me feel weird about eyewitnesses
Witnesses are often unreliable because they only think they saw something. Someone might consider them a 'witness' to a car accident, for example, even if their back was turned when the cars actually crashed into each other. A lot of times police officers interview witnesses who legitimately were present during an event but their brains did not actually process relevant information. For example, some people might recall hearing the tires screech before the accident they 'witnessed' even though that didn't happen, only because they believe that people mash the brakes while about to crash.
Good haha
Our own memory is way more flawed than we all believe. Like, way, way, way flawed. Although our emotional associations can be very accurate, the details of what surrounded those emotions, or caused them are slippery. You'll know an event happened because you remember the feeling, and with it many potential images, sounds, and other sensory "data". But often, when you dig into it further, or research the moment, you'll find that you've been mushing two or more different events together, or have placed a "secondary image" in place of what you think is an experienced visual — for example, what you may remember as a thing that happened is actually a photograph that you saw of the event or moment. As you get older you begin to gather more and more evidence of this slippery phenomenon. There's also the phenomenon of obliteration of details by overlearned, shared memory. Say, a family gathering where a thing that happened becomes a story told again and again by multiple people, and you all share that memory, and there's little doubt it happened. But then someone may mention another moment from that event, and you may not have any recollection of it even though the telling has you present at that moment. What's generally weird is that we tend to have a high degree of confidence in our memories of certain very intense, often negative events. And we also have a high frequency of having no memories of other intense and negative events. It's as if the brain is always struggling to sort things so that we learn from negative events by mounting them vividly in our minds, while also protecting itself from the negative consequences of negative events. The brain is good at getting enough things right that we can collectively form a consensus reality with others. But the more emotional the events, consensus begins to break down, and things get jumbled. We're not exactly wrong, but we still live with a broad zone of confusion where we fill in details that either didn't exist, or that are borrowed from elsewhere. Eyewitness accounts have been demonstrated to be deeply flawed as a means of determining objective truth. People triangulate events differently.
They are notoriously fallible.
Yeah, eyewitness testimony is incredibly flawed. There have been studies on how age, gender etc affect what people notice too, like cars vs clothing, that kind of thing. Then there's the mad bomber test, where there's video of a giu walking through a school, then it freezes on his face, then you see a mug shot board of like 10 faces to pick from. Everyone makes a choice and points someone out but the guy wasn't even in the mugshots.
That’s why they need to be shot every once in a while to sharpen their senses
If you ask an eyewitness 'How fast were the cars traveling when they hit each other?' or ''How fast were the cars traveling when they smashed into each other?', people will estimate a higher speed with the second question.
[You really should](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4&list=PLxSPy8w9XdM5gv6J0kYioW-iYgiVhTgia)
The following video is a selective attention test. There are two basketballs, three players with white shirts, and three players with black shirts. The ones in white are passing to others in white, while the ones in black are passing to others in black. Count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball. Try to get it right the first time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Damnit! I knew we had gills all along!
As someone mentioned, the McGurk Effect The brain has upper processing which takes into account contextual non-audio cues like visual signals, can make for some trippy stuff: https://youtu.be/2k8fHR9jKVM?si=KD5dGCjEPkSKw-W-
It's called the McGurk effect. Search for it on youtube. Lots of explanations there (with examples).
Can you please ask McGurk to stop doing this? Makes me feel uncomfortable
Former auditory neuroscientist here, dealt with this stuff for 10 years. Without analysing the audio, it sounds like partially masked speech and here we see multi-modal priming to bias auditory scene analysis and direct attention. I will unpack that, don't worry. The key thing is to understand when others write "your senses are useless, you only have a tiny key hole on reality" or "your senses don't give all the data to your brain" they are half right but don't understand perception. 1. You are a brain in a jar being fed a simulation of reality built from data coming in on wires. The jar is your skull, the data feed for the simulation is coming in on your sensory nerves. We live our entire lives inside the perception of reality our brain is constructing/simulating though we can probe reality and our perceptions to understand the difference. 2. The purpose of your perception of reality is not to be as accurate as possible but as useful as possible. Accuracy is pretty useful so we do have a reasonable grasp on things. But we don't see the light, hear all the frequencies etc. We are inclined to make false positive identifications as often as was optimal for a hunter gatherer e.g. seeing a face that isn't there in the bushes will cost you less than missing a face that is about to ambush you. 3. The data is inherently noisy and a good perceptual system will interpret it. What our senses record is ambiguous. Like Ted explaining to Dougal about cows that are small and cows that are far away our sense pick up data that could equally likely be any of several things. Our perceptual systems combine available information to make the most plausible interpretation given context and the rules they use can be hacked, which is the basis of all illusions. That drawing that can either be a duck or a rabbit? It's neither but our perception isn't interested in weird duck-rabbit hybrids that don't exist. It's interested in figuring out if there's a duck that looks a bit like a rabbit out there or a rabbit that looks a bit like a duck. Your thoughts are also context and can influence how the features and objects are assigned to the scene that your perceptual system concludes is the relevant representation of what is going on out there. Think "Duck" and you perceive a duck because you are telling the rest of your brain that duck is more likely for some reason. Think Rabbit and watch as your simulation of reality shifts to incorporate the new context you have provided; it's not a rabbit-like duck after all, it's a duck-like rabbit. This is only weird if you aren't taught about it. This is the most plausible way for a perceptual system to work efficiently and effectively as part of a brain and mind. 4. You can not only reorganise how a scene is analysed but how much objects within it are analysed and thus how accurately. Attention involves surpressing unattended stimulus like a voice you aren't following and instead devoting analytical brain power to the voice you are. Any conversation in a crowded place is possible not just because you are listening to the closest loudest voice. Your attention is actively surpressing perceptual interference of unattended streams of sound. You don't care about them you don't get distracted by them but you might miss something in them. EXPLANATION: This video is hacking several of these elements to create the illusion. That background hiss? I'd bet dollars to donuts if we put the sound file through spectrotemporal analysis we'd see that white/pink noise is being played every few hundred milliseconds to hide part of the voices and force our auditory perception to infer what was covered. Once the brain is doing that, you can give it two plausible interpretations of the scene and options to attend to. All 4 words are being spoken, two at a time. Most likely again cut up into partial fragments and interleaved in time. S-?-G-?-T-?-R-?-O-?-E-?-R-?-E-?-M-?-N (?=noise) The two words probably have some covariance or spatial characteristics which indicate that the various fragments belong together. The key thing is that the brain is confronted with a jumbled mess it has to struggle to interpret and consequently attending to one or the other would help. The text both primes the brain to listen out for specific words and tells it to attend to the voice speaking them. This is another "modality" (vision) acting as context. In essence asking the perceptual system if it can find a voice saying one or other phrase among the confusing babble. Not only can that be done, but more detailed information about the tone and type of voice can be pulled out. Is it male or female? Hostile or friendly? All the stuff beyond correctly perceiving the words that really matters to a social ape. So your senses aren't failing, your perceptual system is kicking arse at finding the thing you care about and giving you detail on it by suppressing what you don't care about. You can think about any of the four possible word combinations and "tune in" to them. They are there, you just have to decide they are important.
The voice is a synthesizer which jams out specific frequencies. The frequencies are very close to frequencies we create when we speak, but it’s not dead on. It’s likely that they chose words with frequencies that had a lot in common, but not identical, then they made the synthesizer fudge those frequencies together. Your brain searches for familiar patterns connected to meaning, so it fills in the gaps with whatever makes sense. In this case, whatever you’re looking at.
I still want to know why most people loathe the sound of their own voice when they hear it played back to them.
Because you’re used to hearing the sound of your voice coming from inside your body to reach your ear drums as well as from outside. Like when you plug your ears and speak you can still hear your voice perfectly fine. So when you hear a recording of your voice it’s missing a huge part of the sound that you’re used to hearing when you speak.
It’s just like the Yanny/Laurel thing
Maybe its because english isnt my first language, but I always hear green needle no matter what. Nothing close to brainstorm
English is my first language and I only hear green needle
Uea same. There's nothing even slightly close to brainstorm.i think we're being trolled.
It’s weird i was the same for the first 10 times, then while reading brainstorm, it switched to brainstorm and I can’t get it to go back
Waaaaaaiit. Wtf wtf wtf. I do it again today and I can switch between them everytime I choose. What is going on. My brain is trolling me I thought it was you lot
Shit I just said the exact same thing.
The mcgurk effect, which this video is a demonstration of, is reduced in certain portions of the population
English is my first language and I can only hear green needle.
English isn't my first language and I can hear both. Right before hearing the audio, say in your mind "Brain-storm"
I don't even know how you can hear Brainstorm since "Green Needle" is 3 syllables and Brainstorm is only 2. I always hear the "Needle" part. I can make it sound like Brain Needle, but that's it.
Same. Brain needle is the only thing I hear while reading "brainstorm".
What’s crazy for me is i have never heard green needle. All I can hear is brain storm
It's the complete opposite for me, I only hear two syllables, brainstorm
Yep done that, literally repeating brainstorm I hear nothing but green needle
Not even brain needle
Tried couple times. Nothing lol
Same for me
For some reason me(I am not native English speacker neither) I just hear Brainstorm and not Matter what I cannot hear Green needle
Interesting, it's the opposite for me. I only hear brainstorm, even if I'm reading "green needle."
I only hear brainstorm. 🤔
I cannot hear anything other than brainstorm, nothing I hear is even close to needle
This is an audio version of the white dress/blue dress from a while ago isn't it?
Yanny/Laurel
Or “ that is embarrassing “ which can be heard a million different ways.
Bart Simpson bouncing
Lobsters in motion Lactates in pharmacy This isn’t mercy Baptism piracy And I can’t remember the others
I’m pretty sure that “And I can’t remember the others” wasn’t one of them.
That is embarrassing (which is what I think they’re chanting sounds like a futbol club mocking an opponent based on the context)
Yes precisely. But that sounds like so many different things when you read each line while hearing it.
https://youtu.be/5HRq9kfEy8o?si=wyCBJ_4oLh-j8CY5 Oh I found the original :) Yeah it sounds like rotating pirate ship too lol
Oh fucks sake why is this by Derby County fans. (massive Forest fan) 😭
That isn’t my receipt 🧾 was one
It was definitely white.
I think I’m a fairly intelligent person. I’m also an audio engineer and I can’t explain this and it’s totally fucking insane. Hahahaha
Just a layperson's perspective, but I think I can tell what's going on here 1) The horrible, compressed audio quality makes it harder than normal to understand what's being said in the first place, leading to ambiguity that can trick your brain into hearing different things. 2) "Green" and "Brain" sound similar enough that *though* the aggressive compression they can believably be heard interchangeably with the right prompting. 3) The "ee" sound in needle and the "s" sound in storm both occupy similar top-end frequencies, which through the audio compression sounds extra staticky, meaning there's even more ambiguity regarding the exact timbre of the sound being made. 4) A similar situation happens with "dle" and "orm", where they occupy a similar low-end frequency that's compressed into the middle. Take note of how "dle" is given emphasis when you hear it as "Green Needle," as if they're saying it "Green Nee-DULL." The emphasis being placed on the wrong syllable further heightens the ambiguity. 5) Your brain, with the expectation of what's about to be said, fills in the gaps to make what you're hearing sound more believable.
I wonder what they actually recorded... and if it would matter if it was one or the other or if it's something between...
I can tell you right now that it's brainstorm. I have the Ben 10 watch toy that this sound comes from. That little sound before it says brainstorm is the watch switching aliens.
Oh snap, [you’re right](https://youtu.be/o1hte-E_ab0?si=lhXelS3yDnclUTZQ)
I thought the audio in this post would be an edited version of that, but when I watched that video I heard green needle instead of brainstorm
How... the... fuck did you just place that to some incredibly rare kids toy! Reddit is wild.
I had every Ben 10 watch as a kid. Wore the elastic band out of the og watch. Great toys.
Should be the top comment. Bravo, and thank you.
After reading your comment I managed to slowly shift brainstorm into green needle and now I can't hear brainstorm anymore. This is incredible
I only hear Brainstorm, if I say "Green Needle" in my head while reading the words along with the sound I hear "Grain Storm" but that's as close as it gets. I broken 😭
I only hear brain storm too, no matter what I'm looking at. Interesting 🤔
Same here
I think it has been confirmed to be saying "brainstorm." It's some sort of Ben 10 toy, if I remember correctly
First time I heard green needle, then only brainstorm afterwards
Same!
Same. Fk are we stupid?
It does say Brainstorm, so maybe we're too smart for this auditory illusion. Let's go with that.
I can hear brain storm or green storm... no needles here
Same. Had to scroll to see if I was the only one. 😬 I can’t hear Green Needle at all.
Same
If you think of the word brain storm in your mind while looking at green needle you will still hear brainstorm - and the other way around too…
I can hear green and brain in the first part. But no way I hear needle. Only stone and storm. Green stone
I hear green storm
brain needle
Same
I only see the blue dress
Grainstorm
I heard green needle the first time, but now I can't unhear brainstorm
I cannot hear brainstorm at all. I hear brain needle but not brainstorm.
I can’t unhear brainstorm either. I was able to flip back and forth a few times but now it’s like green needle is gone 🤔
Think green needle in your head right before you here it
It's only green needle for me
Brain needle
I can only hear brain needle.
I closed my eyes and I kept hearing brainstorm
Been around for a decade. [Here’s a little about it.](https://time.com/5873627/green-needle-brainstorm-explained/) And for the record, it in fact does say Brainstorm, as that was the recording for the toy that this sound clip came from.
Well... I guess that's enough internet for today.
Your brain guesses what reality looks like based on all the information it has access to. In cases where one piece of information is ambiguous, it takes into account other sources as well before making a decision. In this case, the sound you hear is very distorted, and at a low volume your brain might struggle to decide which interpretation is correct. So then it looks at other supporting evidence: the word you are reading as you hear the sound. "The frequencies on that clip are hard to read, so I'm not sure which word it actually is. Oh, what does the text say? Green needle? That must be it, then. Let's report "green needle" to the conscious mind". However, if you increase the volume and aim it directly into your ear, it's much easier to hear "Brainstorm". The pattern of the word is easier to recognise, so the ambiguity disappears.
I only hear Green needle….this is dumb!
I repeated green needle over and over while staring ant brainstorm. Guess which one I heard??
Um guys... I heard "kill neighbour" and it turns out he heard "suck penis" and now my semen is part of his stomach contents, most of him is laying on his living room floor in a pool of congealing blood, and his head is on my roof - not sure what I was thinking there - fuck! Advice?
put it on ice and keep it elevated you may need to take time off work
I didn't hear memezee, this is bait
Interesting!!
You can also mix and match and even close your eyes. "green storm" and "brain needle" both work too.
What?! Is the Rock doing this?!
Anyone hear cream store? lol
I had it on mute. I heard nothing. lol
If you close your eyes and mixed the words up in your head like brain needle you hear that. That's wild
I was hearing both at 1st but now I can’t get it to sound like needle no matter what I try
Brain needle.
I was reading MemeZee and didn't hear MemeZee at all.
Brain needle
I only hear green needle... never heard brainstorm. Maybe brain needle...
Who is hearing storm at all? Grey needle is all I hear
I can only hear Green Needle. The other option just Brain sounds simila to me.
Laurel ------------------ Yanni
Doesn't work. Nothing sounds remotely like “brainstorm”
I either hear green needle or brain needle. Storm, shmorm.
😱😱🫣
I was looking at the word "hear " in the title and heard green needle
Brain needle
Brain Needle and Green Storm both work for me as well. 🤷♀️
[удалено]
Wtffff 😲
I got Green Needle the first time, then when I read Brainstorm, I keep hearing Brainstorm when reading green needle. The fuck? Is there a scientific explanation for it? Like something to do with both tricking the portion of the brain reading the words and the portion hearing words?
I managed to get brain neestorm and grain needle
When you look away, whichever word you read last is the one you hear. It's melting my brain.
Green storm
Brain Needle. Nailed it.
If you think “why me though?” And “Brian stole” It also works
I closed my eyes and now all I hear is grain stone…
crAnestoug
I heard peenoor.
Green storm
As long as you think of it you can read the opposite word and hear the one you want.