The Interface Theory of Perception

[Tim Lookingbill]

Your followers everywhere will take note.

Isaac, why don't you tell us how useful the information is to you so all my followers will take note. Show us with specifics how it helps you live a better life. I dare you!

[amolitor]

Really, we don't need to know anything more than which plants have edible roots, and what the best spot to jam the sharp stick into the antelope is.

If you want to get fancy I guess you could start trying to recall which grubs taste best.

[Telecaster]

The ideas of umvelt and umgebung have been around for ages. The conceit is, sometimes, that this only applies to animals but humans, being somehow special, perceive things as they truly are. This sort of exceptionalism is laughable.

Fixed the italics. 

Anyway, I suspect you've identified the source of (most of) the ire investigation into how sense perception actually works typically draws. Sacred cow territory.

-Dave-

[Diego Pigozzo]

You are missing the point: the image we get of the tiger does not have to be (and is not) anywhere close to completely accurate or "veridical"; it just has to serve the purpose of telling us that we need to run away.

I'm not missing this point because A) I agree with it and B) that's NOT what these guys are saying.
These guys are saying that our perception of the tiger has no relation whatsoever with the "truth of the tiger" (which, if ever means something, means "the objective qualities of the tiger".

The example you make about the color is spot-on, but it also shown why these guys are wrong: you may perceive "red" and "green" in a completely personal way but, unless your vision is impared, your perception of "red" is different from your perception of "green".

And this difference if perception is related (probably non uniquely, but related nonetheless) with the objective difference in wavelength of red and green light.

[amolitor]

Color is exactly the kind of thing these guys are talking about.

There's lots of world experiences (physical colors) which cause the same perception (roughly, RGB color).

[Diego Pigozzo]

Color is exactly the kind of thing these guys are talking about.

There's lots of world experiences (physical colors) which cause the same perception (roughly, RGB color).

And there is a lot of different world experiences that causes different perception: that's why they are wrong.

[Rand47]

Darn good thing aviation engineers, neurosurgeons, and even electricians are all "exactly alike" in thier misperception of reality.

This kind of rubbish is exactly what one would expect from reductionism run amok.

Rand

[Diego Pigozzo]

Darn good thing aviation engineers, neurosurgeons, and even electricians are all "exactly alike" in thier misperception of reality.

This kind of rubbish is exactly what one would expect from reductionism run amok.

Rand

Yeaph, I agree.

[amolitor]

Honestly, if you can't be bothered to keep track of what's being talked about you could at least perform the courtesy of not barging in to loudly dismiss it all.

[PeterAit]

Is it possible that, on this one occasion, you are mistaken? :-)

Thanks, Isaac, for the laugh. But, as often as I am mistaken, the odor of manure is unmistakable - and in this case, very strong!

[amolitor]

Perhaps you chappies want to take a crack, then, at just how it is that we are able to visually identify a photo of a tiger with an actual tiger.

And 'well, duh' and its cognates don't count. You have to break it down a little more than that.

[Rand47]

Honestly, if you can't be bothered to keep track of what's being talked about you could at least perform the courtesy of not barging in to loudly dismiss it all.

Are you in reference to my post?

Rand

[amolitor]

I am referring to several posts, at least one made by you, yes.

[Rand47]

I am referring to several posts, at least one made by you, yes.

Thanks for the clarification.  Unless you claim omniscience, how can you possibly know who "has kept track" of what is being dicussed, and who has not?  And even if you claim omniscience, how do you know that your perception of omniscience is the same as others?  As I said, reductionism run amok.

Rand

[amolitor]

I don't need to be omniscient. Your post, reply #29, makes it clear that you don't understand the paper I'm taking about.

[Telecaster]

The funny thing is…other researchers in this same field will do their best to tear this paper apart. And they may well succeed. But if they do succeed it won't be via arrogantly slinging pejoratives but via creating even better models and via analyzing the data even more rigorously and insightfully than these authors.

-Dave-

[Rand47]

I don't need to be omniscient. Your post, reply #29, makes it clear that you don't understand the paper I'm taking about.

And I would posit that your sphere of awareness doesn't include the underlying philosophical a priori assumptions that underlie the article.

Rand

[amolitor]

You should italicize the Latin phrases. It lends gravitas.

[Rand47]

You should italicize the Latin phrases. It lends gravitas.

LOL...   good one!   

Rand

[Torbjörn Tapani]

It should be clear to anyone with any basic physics schooling that what we perceive is not the actual truth of reality. Take the classic doubble slit experiment where a photon will interact with itself.