5 - Concise Summary of the RIGHT Answer

[MikeO]

.





In both of the Feynman accounts mentioned in. “Understanding WRONG Answers” .it’s striking how succinct his explanations were. If my theory is better, I should be able to do the same.

This thread has three such attempts, taking three different approaches.. I think the third one is best.


Here goes with the first compact explanation:



It often happens in a person gazing in a mirror, that a flash of mental imagery suggests the performance of a certain operation. The mirror image is frozen, but a self rotation is imagined about the vertical axis to face in the same direction as the image. Upon doing this, a "reversal" of Left and Right is perceived in the image. We have labeled this imagined procedure "operational definition Number Two" or shortened to OpDef-2.


This mentally imagined procedure is fleeting in duration and there are no words involved. Later on, the fact that Up and Down were not reversed comes up, and this seems like an unexplained asymmetry.


When analytical thinking and vocalization are brought into play to explain this asymmetry, the rotation is usually not employed. As a result, the perceived reversal is front to back, and the left/right reversal vanishes. We have labeled this procedure OpDef-1 for the word "reverse."


Thinking back on all this and subconsciously drifting back and forth between OpDef-2 and OpDef-1, the mirror paradox is experienced in the confusion. It’s first perceived as an unexplained asymmetry with Up and Down not reversed when OpDef-2 is in mind. Then it’s compounded upon drifting to OpDef-1 as an unexplained vanishing of the Left and Right reversal.

[MikeO]

.



The drift mentioned above may be measurable with modern technology.

It seems that OpDef-2 is a gestalt kind of thing. It may be located in one side of the brain, like in vision or artistic regions.

And OpDef-1 seems to involve steps, words, and scientific reasoning, and may be located in elsewhere in the brain.

[MikeO]

.



Here's another attempt at brevity, with slightly differing nomenclature:




First, three postulates:

1 - When people want to compare two nearly identical objects,
a normal strategy is to line them up, facing the same direction.

2 - A powerful way to deal with subtle qualities is to specify
an Operational Definition for the determination of such a quality.

3 - Another normal strategy, when dealing with a confusing setup,
is to insist on not disturbing the scene, leaving it "as is,"
and then analyzing it piece by piece.



Now the explanation:

It often happens in a person gazing in a mirror, that a flash of mental imagery suggests the performance of a certain operation. In this operation, or procedure, the mirror image is frozen, but a self rotation is imagined about the vertical axis in order to face in the same direction as the image. Upon doing this, a "reversal" of Left and Right is perceived in the image. Let’s label this imagined procedure "operational definition A" or shortened to OpDef-A.

This mentally imagined procedure is fleeting in duration and there are no words involved. Later on, the fact that Up and Down were not reversed comes up, and this seems like an unexplained asymmetry.

When analytical thinking and vocalization are brought into play to explain this asymmetry, the rotation is usually not employed, and the situation is examined “as is” and piece by piece. The result is a perceived reversal of front to back, and the left/right reversal vanishes. Let’s label this analytical procedure "operational definition B" or shortened to OpDef-B.

Thinking back on all this and subconsciously drifting back and forth between OpDef-A and OpDef-B, the mirror paradox is experienced in the confusion. It’s first perceived as an unexplained asymmetry with Up and Down not reversed when OpDef-A is in mind. Then it’s compounded upon drifting to OpDef-B as an unexplained vanishing of the Left and Right reversal.

[MikeO]

.


This explantation keeps evolving as I interact with others. Here is the latest attempt:


The mirror reversal puzzle is not so much a matter of the science of light rays, optics, and the Physics behind mirror reflection, but is far more a PEOPLE thing.

I’d say it can best be solved by a science of human activities, a science that deals with how people interact with complicated or subtle things. The structure of “reversedness” in a human being’s mental imagery is far more subtle than the reversal of a photon’s trajectory.

When people want to compare any two nearly identical objects for some subtle difference there are two common strategies they can use. These two strategies are often useful, but they are also oddly contradictory.


***


In one strategy, the two objects are lined up to face in the same direction before they are compared. For instance, if two nearly identical pens are to be compared, no one I know of would ever hold one pen horizontally, the other vertically, and then proceed to compare them. People commonly want hold them facing in the same direction for such a task.

When a person uses this strategy in the mirror situation they like to imagine themselves rotating about a vertical axis for a comparison with their image. This rotation brings them to face the same direction as their earlier image was pointing. This also requires them to mentally freeze their image as it was when they faced the mirror. When ALL this is done, the Left/Right reversal is obvious.

It can get a little complicated, but many people seem to have the mental circuitry to perform all this in a near subconscious flash of imagery. Verbalizing it is far more difficult and hardly anyone can hold on to the images long enough to do that.


***


The second common human strategy for dealing with complicated situations, is to freeze EVERYTHING, avoid disturbing the scene, and look at the situation “as is” in order to perform an analysis of the subtle differences between two objects. This is the classic Sherlock Holmes approach to a crime scene.

In the mirror setup, performing this “as is” strategy means NOT rotating anything at all before doing the comparison between image and object, and the Left/Right reversal fails to show up. Instead, a Front/Back reversal is apparent in this “as is” comparison.


***


Of the two strategies, the second is FAR simpler. The first is almost too complicated to be done mentally, and it’s often impossible to document in any way. Yet, it can happen in a flash of mental imagery, only to fade as soon as words are brought in to capture it.

Often a person, deep in the throws of the mirror riddle, will drift from one strategy to the other subconsciously. This is often described as “magical” by those who delight in that sort of thing, while others will literally complain of the headache it causes them.

When each strategy is carefully thought through, ONE AT A TIME, clarity results.


***


It’s unlikely, but it might possibly occur to a gymnast to apply the first strategy by rotating about an horizontal axis, instead of the vertical in order to face the same direction.

This means performing a hand stand to face in the same direction as the earlier frozen image, and then Up and Down would be seen to be reversed. But who is prone to do this difficult action or even to imagine it? And not only is it difficult, but it risks injury and even seven years of bad luck if the mirror is broken? ;D

So, it’s not the mirror so much that does any reversing of perceived images, as it is people who do that by their selection of comparison strategies.

The three strategies mentioned “reverse” all three dimensions: Left/Right, Front/Back, and Up/Down. Mirrors reverse the direction of light rays, but people decide how they are going to compare image to object. It's in this decision that the perceived reversal occurs.

[MikeO]

.



I just noticed an unfortunate choice of nomenclatures on my part. So Benjamin Franklin isn’t the only one!

In the Third Attempt at extreme brevity above (Round Three in purple) I labeled some items poorly. I should have reversed the order of the Strategy #1 and #2 so that they corresponded with the Operational Definitions #1 and #2 that I had set up in earlier threads. As it is now, they’re reversed... Hey! Get it? They were REVERSED!

Maybe this reversal stuff is deeper than I think.... ...maybe this is a logic loop in space that... ...?

Nawwwww!


Oh well. I’d have simply edited the Third Attempt above to line the Strategies up with the Operational Definitions, but I had already posted this Third Attempt on a popular website that (I think) brings a lot of traffic here. It’s too late to fix it now without adding in another element of confusion. Ben Franklin, I feel your pain.

[MikeO]

...under construction