Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The Interface Theory of Perception  (Read 15307 times)

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2015, 11:19:56 pm »

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.

Do you think it is "close enough" (though) to "do physics?"

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2015, 11:36:15 pm »

It is the lack of dispersion that makes it possible to do science and engineering, not the veridicality.

Although, obviously, our actual perceptual strategies do have a little dispersion. A great deal of scientific technique is about managing dispersion.
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2015, 11:46:35 pm »

It is the lack of dispersion that makes it possible to do science and engineering, not the veridicality.

Although, obviously, our actual perceptual strategies do have a little dispersion. A great deal of scientific technique is about managing dispersion.

And what would be the mechanism for "lack of dispersion" given that our perception is unreliable?

Rnad
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #43 on: September 25, 2015, 12:11:32 am »

Um, you seem to be the only person in the thread stating that our perception is "unreliable" and I'm not sure what you mean.

I used "reliably" once, in an assertion that our perception is reliable, in the sense that it lacks dispersion.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the mechanism for "lack of dispersion"' actually. It's just a property, like pink. What is the paint's mechanism for being pink? I don't know. It's just a property of the pigment, surely.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #44 on: September 25, 2015, 01:30:02 am »

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
Non necessarily: a theory can be shown to be wrong even without proposing something better.

In this case, the theory fails completely to explaing why different stimulus produces different perception (since the theory claims that the perception has no relation whatsoever with the objective qualities of the stimulus, one of which is their difference, as shown with the red and green color), therefore it is wrong.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2015, 09:05:02 am »

Huh?
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2015, 12:07:52 pm »

Here's an interesting merger of this discussion of the veracity of a visual system designed by evolution and the New Horizons Pluto photos: the design evolved (by engineers in this case) for the New Horizons camera is deliberately color blind to green, because for the purpose of viewing Pluto  "less [color accuracy] is more [useful]".  Wasting resources on the additional veracity of having green sensors would give worse results overall, due to requiring resource cuts elsewhere:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/new-horizons-sends-back-stunning-partial-color-images-of-a-new-world/?comments=1&post=29817209
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 12:09:48 pm by BJL »
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2015, 02:20:12 pm »

Here's an interesting merger of this discussion of the veracity of a visual system designed by evolution and the New Horizons Pluto photos: the design evolved (by engineers in this case) for the New Horizons camera is deliberately color blind to green, because for the purpose of viewing Pluto  "less [color accuracy] is more [useful]".  Wasting resources on the additional veracity of having green sensors would give worse results overall, due to requiring resource cuts elsewhere:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/new-horizons-sends-back-stunning-partial-color-images-of-a-new-world/?comments=1&post=29817209
p

The known, objective, characteristics of green were eliminated because they are "know, objective, consistent" and in this case not desirable.  "Green" was still green regardless of any perceptual differences individuals may have when they "see" green.  The reality of the objective world is what makes possible our ability to even discuss it, let alone do science, medicine, engineering, photography, ad naseum. 

The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door. 

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #48 on: September 25, 2015, 02:27:34 pm »

You are completely talking past the ideas in the paper, as are all the naysayers.

It's painfully clear that none of you know what the paper is saying. Which is a shame, because it's pretty interesting.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2015, 03:23:59 pm »

You are completely talking past the ideas in the paper, as are all the naysayers.

It's painfully clear that none of you know what the paper is saying. Which is a shame, because it's pretty interesting.

When someone speaks of "truth" refering the word to physical entities (like tigers, trees, rocks and so on) there is no need to read what he's writing because it's clear that he doen's know what he's talking about.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2015, 03:28:23 pm »

p

The known, objective, characteristics of green were eliminated because they are "know, objective, consistent" and in this case not desirable.  "Green" was still green regardless of any perceptual differences individuals may have when they "see" green.  The reality of the objective world is what makes possible our ability to even discuss it, let alone do science, medicine, engineering, photography, ad naseum. 

The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door. 

Rand

So true and obvious, yet so obscure to some.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2015, 03:56:00 pm »



Don't try to follow the green dot. Only realize the truth. There is no green dot.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2015, 03:57:27 pm »


Don't try to follow the green dot. Only realize the truth. There is no green dot.

And therfore...?
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2015, 04:28:20 pm »

OK. So we're on the same page: you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care.

You can move on now.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2015, 04:35:44 pm »

OK. So we're on the same page: you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't care.

You can move on now.

Believe so, if it fits you.
The facts remains that they are just babbling nonsense (and provably so with the red and green thing).
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2015, 04:43:42 pm »

The general coherence/congruence of our collective perception is fundamental to our existence as society. Philosophical reductionism likes to say differently, but even those saying such things leave them in the study when they walk out the door.

IMO you're reading a post-modernist solipsism into this paper that isn't there. The paper simply postulates a particular theory about how our sense perception works. It's not trying to describe or define the reality of what we perceive. There is a corollary, though, that I can imagine some folks might find objectionable: anyone claiming the ability to objectively perceive "the world out there" shouldn't be taken seriously. Can't imagine that sitting well with dogmatists of any stripe.

-Dave-
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2015, 04:45:12 pm »

anyone claiming the ability to objectively perceive "the world out there" shouldn't be taken seriously.
A sentence hard to take seriously when read on a computer.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2015, 04:55:54 pm »

We're taking about a paper here. Either you've taken a shot at reading it or you haven't.

It's clear that several commenters here haven't read it, but see fit to judge it anyway. And their judgements are laughably wrong, which happens sometimes when you choose to attack in ignorance.

Dismissing it as philosophical blabbering doesn't work when it's not philosophical blabbering.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2015, 04:59:32 pm »

We're taking about a paper here. Either you've taken a shot at reading it or you haven't.

It's clear that several commenters here haven't read it, but see fit to judge it anyway. And their judgements are laughably wrong, which happens sometimes when you choose to attack in ignorance.

Dismissing it as philosophical blabbering doesn't work when it's not philosophical blabbering.

We're talking about a theory, here, not a paper.
And the theory is wrong (as demostrated by the red/green thing).

But again: believe what fits you.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: The Interface Theory of Perception
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2015, 05:08:02 pm »

The red/green thing is about dispersion not about veridicality. You don't know what "dispersion" means in this context, because you havem't read the paper. If you think we're talking about a "theory" rather than a "paper" I assume you mean we're talking about this "interface theory" which is described in the paper which you have not read. So distinctions between the paper and the theory are moot. You are equally ignorant of both having not read the paper in which the theory is described

The interface theory of perception as elucidated in the paper is about dispersion-free perceptual strategies which are not veridical. Since you don't know what either "dispersion" or "veridical" mean because you haven't read the paper you are arguing in complete ignorance, and are simply wrong. Which is going to happen when you're arguing without knowing what any of the words mean.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up