What does it mean to perceive Objectively?

[Christopher]

How do we know when we are perceiving reality Objectively? The basis of Rand's vision for Objective reality was that we perceive through the senses, and that we use our cognitive faculties to explain what we're perceiving. For example: we see the light of a laser beam. When that laser beam hits water, it suddenly appears to bend. Rationally, we consider this refraction to occur because light moves a little slower through different mediums.

Rand made the assumption in Intro to Objectivist Epistemology (OE) that perceptions are "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism."

The (implicit) concept "existent" undergoes three stages of development in man's mind. the first stage is a child's awareness of objects, of things -- which represents the (implicit) concept "entity." The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of speciific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual field -- which represents the (implicit) concept "identity.

The third stage consists of grasping relationships among these entities by grasping the similarities and differences of their identities. This requires the transformation of the (implicit) concept "identity" into the (implicit) concept "unit." ... This is the key, the entrance to the conceptual level of man's consciousness. The ability to regard entities as units is man's distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow.

A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members. (Two stones are two units; so arte two square feet of ground, if regarded as distinct parts of a continuous stretch of ground.) Note that the concept "unit" involves an act of consciousness (a selective focus, a certain way of regarding things), but that it is not an arbitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. This method permits any number of classifications and cross-classifications: one may classify things acording to their shape or color or weight or size or atomic structure; but the criterion of classification is not invented, it is perceived in reality. Thus the concept "unit" is a bridge between metaphysics and epistemology: units do not exist qua units, what exists are things, but units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships.

Now let's look at how the process of concept formation takes place phenomenally:

Prof B: In forming the concept "blue," a child would perceive that two lue things, with respect to color, are similar and are different from some red thing. And he places the vlues in a range of measurements within the broader category, red being somewhere else on the scale.

AR: Right.

Prof B: Now, in fact, he doesn't have a category of measurements explicitly, so what actually goes on, as you indicate, is that he percfeives similarities and differences directly.

AR: That's right.

Prof B: Then is what enables him to classify the blue things as blue the fact that he experiences them as belonging together, as against the red one?

AR: If you are trying to project what his psychological state actually is, I think the better way to say it would be: he would feel "these things are similar and these things are different," rather than "they belong together," because the second is a more sophisticated concept. (italics mine)

So the mechanisms of perception identify similarities in a sort-of preconceptual manner, through an experience. Rand argues that feelings and subjective experiences can be irrational, so how does she distinguish between irrational perceptions based on subjective feelings and rational epistemologically hard-wired universal (rational) feelings that direct "Objective" perception? What are the source of these unit-distinguishing feelings? Can there be multiple sets of such perception-oriented feelings existing pluralistically in our minds? If so, how do we judge (if judgment is necessary) which set of feelings are most metaphysically accurate?

[thomtg]

How do we know when we are perceiving reality Objectively? [...]

Perception is veridical. The above question takes "objectivity" as a "stolen" concept. It is only when we conceptualize something that the issue of objectivity enters the epistemological scene. As I have stated elsewhere, seeing is believing; understanding, by contrast, now that requires error checking and volitional assenting.

[kiaer.ts]

So the mechanisms of perception identify similarities in a sort-of preconceptual manner, through an experience. Rand argues that feelings and subjective experiences can be irrational, so how does she distinguish between irrational perceptions based on subjective feelings and rational epistemologically hard-wired universal (rational) feelings that direct "Objective" perception? What are the source of these unit-distinguishing feelings? Can there be multiple sets of such perception-oriented feelings existing pluralistically in our minds? If so, how do we judge (if judgment is necessary) which set of feelings are most metaphysically accurate?

A perception is the immediate apprehension of an entity or entities (or their qualities as in smell) by the senses. Right now you are perceiving the computer screen and if you close your eyes the perception will stop. Thomas's post above is correct, but I think you may be using a wider notion of perception.

To say "irrational perceptions based on subjective feelings" implies that you are taking the thought that you don't like something as a perception. Consider seeing a horrror movie and turning away in disgust. The mere vision of the image without emotional evaluation is the perception. The squeamishness is not.

Two good things to keep in mind are that perception is what stops when you close your eyes, plug your ears, etc., and that when you and an animal watch tv you perceive the same object (even tho for the dog it may be black and white) but what you get and he doesn't is based on your conceptual faculty. You both may watch friday the thirteenth and perceive the same thing but he won't have an emotional reaction based on a conceptual evaluation.

[Christopher]

"Seeing is believing."

But this is exactly the area where I'm placing the magnifying glass of inquiry. Seeing alone is sensory input, but seeing alone is nothing else. Our mind takes sight-sensory input and forms perceptions automatically (this is the intermediary step); then our consciousness becomes aware of these perceptions.

Although percept-organization occurs automatically, why is it assumed that our minds form perceptions that are universal among all men? There are certainly cultural influences, and there might even be biological influences that lead men to "see" the same thing through the senses but receive different perceptions in awareness as a result of that sensory input.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Christopher

[kiaer.ts]

"Seeing is believing."

But this is exactly the area where I'm placing the magnifying glass of inquiry. Seeing alone is sensory input, but seeing alone is nothing else. Our mind takes sight-sensory input and forms perceptions automatically (this is the intermediary step); then our consciousness becomes aware of these perceptions.

Although percept-organization occurs automatically, why is it assumed that our minds form perceptions that are universal among all men? There are certainly cultural influences, and there might even be biological influences that lead men to "see" the same thing through the senses but receive different perceptions in awareness as a result of that sensory input.

This is really too difficult a topic to teach in this sort of forum, but why do you imply that perrceptions have to be the same for all people in order for them to be a base for objective individual knowledge? Each person makes the implicit judgement "this is how this object looks under these circumstances to me." I may be colorblind or I may be wearing rose colored glasses or be looking at an object passing thru a refractive surface such as a stick passing thru the surface of a lake. That is how those things look to me under those circumstances.

The problem is not with the perception. It may be with the explicit propositional judgements we make based on those perceptions. Perhaps we do not realize that the black shoes are actually green when we look at them thru orange colored glasses. We have to learn to be careful with the judgements that we make. Judgemenyts are not perceptions. Indeed, it is when we take off the glasses and perceive that the shoes are green that we realize we made a mistake in judgement. It is always and only percepts (in this case the perception free from colored lenses) that correct judgements. Not the other way around. Ev en in the case of the stick appearing bent, it is the judgement that is wrong. "Bent" is the way a straight stick appears when it passes thru a surface.

I strongly suggest you read David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses if these issues interest you.

[tjohnson]

The way science deals with this is to verify observations repeated times. You don't take one individual's word about what they observed (or heard etc.) and we created instruments that remove more of the subjectivity and so we can define colour in terms of wavelength etc. In a way, science is a way of putting mankind's experience into order.

[kiaer.ts]

The way science deals with this is to verify observations repeated times. You don't take one individual's word about what they observed (or heard etc.) and we created instruments that remove more of the subjectivity and so we can define colour in terms of wavelength etc. In a way, science is a way of putting mankind's experience into order.

Ah, yes, I forgot that when a hundred people look at an apparently "bent" stick it starts to appear straight.

Sorry, the purpose for repeated observation is either to reduce error (not subjectivity) or to look for statistical correlations. But every observation is equally someone's observation. 100 hallucinations don't add up to a perception.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

You get very close to a premise I hold, but I haven't seen expressed explicitly very often.

I claim we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. This is reflected in us having both subatomic particles, a top-down form, and a place where we fit into something even bigger (species in our case, before including the rest of the universe), and even being made up of parts that show the same characteristics. Notice that the subatomic particles are the same as for the rest of the universe. Human form both arises from other living forms and unfolds over time like they do with birth, growth, peak, decay, death, and the human species shows the same species characteristics that all higher-level species do. I could probably go on in this line of thought and come up with many other parallels.

My point is that our sense organs developed in harmony with what they sense. Not as categories nor as eternally imperfect instruments of distortion. This sameness of "stuff" in the universe that is also within us is precisely what defines the difference between objectivity and organ malfunction (or hallucination or whatever you want to call it).

I intend to pursue this line of thinking over time.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

You get very close to a premise I hold, but I haven't seen expressed explicitly very often.

I claim we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. This is reflected in us having both subatomic particles, a top-down form, and a place where we fit into something even bigger (species in our case, before including the rest of the universe), and even being made up of parts that show the same characteristics. Notice that the subatomic particles are the same as for the rest of the universe. Human form both arises from other living forms and unfolds over time like they do with birth, growth, peak, decay, death, and the human species shows the same species characteristics that all higher-level species do. I could probably go on in this line of thought and come up with many other parallels.

My point is that our sense organs developed in harmony with what they sense. Not as categories nor as eternally imperfect instruments of distortion. This sameness of "stuff" in the universe that is also within us is precisely what defines the difference between objectivity and organ malfunction (or hallucination or whatever you want to call it).

I intend to pursue this line of thinking over time.

Michael

Yes, that's called evolutionary epistemology or evolutionary theory of the mind. The mind has to work because its an evolved organ, (but its purpose isn't truth, but survival). This can be very strong if properly worked out, but problematic with the wrong premises and emphasis. I am no expert. You should ask Boydstun, he'll have 10 references for you.

[Christopher]

Let's take a ball. A child sees a ball and his/her mind automatically differentiates it from the rest of the ball's surroundings. The ball, in other words, becomes an independent entity.

Why does the human mind necessarily divide reality in this manner? Why see a ball? Why not see two half-spheres, why not see only the density of the ball, why not see the ball as part of the entity that is the table on which the ball sits? There is something very unique in the way we perceive everything regardless of the sensory input coming in.

Why do we perceive things the way we do? I believe evolution offers one explanation. We organize our senses into perceptions and entities that are necessary to be aware of within the environment in order to survive and remain healthy. But if that's the case, can we perceive things differently depending on different requirements for survival?

Edited May 31, 2009 by Christopher

[kiaer.ts]

Let's take a ball. A child sees a ball and his/her mind automatically differentiates it from the rest of the ball's surroundings. The ball, in other words, becomes an independent entity.

Why does the human mind necessarily divide reality in this manner? Why see a ball? Why not see two half-spheres, why not see only the density of the ball, why not see the ball as part of the entity that is the table on which the ball sits? There is something very unique in the way we perceive everything regardless of the sensory input coming in.

Why do we perceive things the way we do? I believe evolution offers one explanation. We organize our senses into perceptions that are necessary to be aware of within the environment in order to survive and remain healthy. But if that's the case, can we perceive things differently depending on different requirements for survival?

First paragraph - No, the ball is an independent reality. The mind grasps this. You would never have com e up with the concept mind if you did not already implicitly posses the concept "independent reality."

Second paragraph - You can see two half spheres on acid. You should try it, once, if you aren't already unbalanced. You can do this by ordering a quarter pound of pesticide untreated morning-glory seeds from the Burpee catalog. You have to eat about a shot glass full of them. They taste awful, and you must chew and eat them swiftly. You wil vomit once, violently, after about 45 minutesd. Make sure you are off for a week, and that you do not have access to any weapons or vehicles. You will see your perception of reality come apart at the seems. You will have vivid visual, auditory and somatosensory hallucinations for 12-24 hours. But this is the mind not conforming to reality, or better, losing its ability to integrate your sense inputs.

Thrid paragraph - You have answered your own question in your second paragraph. Our perceptual faculties are suited to the nature of our species. We have no need for an underwater electrical sense, but we do benefit from stereoscopic color vision. Also, individuals vary. Women (ask one if you know one) have a hightened sense of smell when they are pregnant, and varying with their cycles. A pregnant woman can smell what you had for dinner last night at 100 feet.

The bottom line is that we are getting more or less data, not that we are perceiving different realities. Perception is how something appears to you in those circumstances. Objectyivity means paying attention to this real relation when you make judgements based upon them, not an "ideal" unembodied knowledge that has no context and no source.

[Christopher]

First paragraph - No, the ball is an independent reality. The mind grasps this.

Second paragraph - You can see two half spheres on acid. You should try it, once, if you aren't already unbalanced. You can do this by ordering a quarter pound of pesticide untreated morning-glory seeds from the Burpee catalog. You have to eat about a shot glass full of them. They taste awful, and you must chew and eat them swiftly. You wil vomit once, violently, after about 45 minutesd. Make sure you are off for a week, and that you do not have access to any weapons or vehicles. You will see your perception of reality come apart at the seems. You will have vivid visual, auditory and somatosensory hallucinations for 12-24 hours. But this is the mind not conforming to reality, or better, losing its ability to integrate your sense inputs.

Thrid paragraph - You have answered your own question in your second paragraph. Our perceptual faculties are suited to the nature of our species. We have no need for an underwater electrical sense, but we do benefit from stereoscopic color vision. Also, individuals vary. Women (ask one if you know one) have a hightened sense of smell when they are pregnant, and varying with their cycles. A pregnant woman can smell what you had for dinner last night at 100 feet.

The bottom line is that we are getting more or less data, not that we are perceiving different realities. Perception is how something appears to you in those circumstances. Objectyivity means paying attention to this real relation when you make judgements based upon them, not an "ideal" unembodied knowledge that has no context and no source.

Your first sentence shows me your not grasping what I'm positing. The ball is an independent reality because the mind sees it as such.

Your paragraph about underwater electrical sense - now you're talking about senses, but I'm talking perceptions, I'm talking about how the mind organizes senses.

The ball is not necessarily an independent entity. We perceive the ball to be an independent entity because our relationship with reality is such that to see independent entities such as the ball is more concordant to our own organismic relationship with reality (and to surviving and remaining healthy).

What if a being originated in a gas giant. Would such a being need to have perception of solids even if it had visual (photon-awareness) of gas colors, etc? Probably not, because the environment of such solids is irrelevant. What if the being could move through matter as we know it? Would the being necessarily need to be aware of matter in the same way we are aware of matter?

[kiaer.ts]

First paragraph - No, the ball is an independent reality. The mind grasps this.

Second paragraph - You can see two half spheres on acid. You should try it, once, if you aren't already unbalanced. You can do this by ordering a quarter pound of pesticide untreated morning-glory seeds from the Burpee catalog. You have to eat about a shot glass full of them. They taste awful, and you must chew and eat them swiftly. You wil vomit once, violently, after about 45 minutesd. Make sure you are off for a week, and that you do not have access to any weapons or vehicles. You will see your perception of reality come apart at the seems. You will have vivid visual, auditory and somatosensory hallucinations for 12-24 hours. But this is the mind not conforming to reality, or better, losing its ability to integrate your sense inputs.

Thrid paragraph - You have answered your own question in your second paragraph. Our perceptual faculties are suited to the nature of our species. We have no need for an underwater electrical sense, but we do benefit from stereoscopic color vision. Also, individuals vary. Women (ask one if you know one) have a hightened sense of smell when they are pregnant, and varying with their cycles. A pregnant woman can smell what you had for dinner last night at 100 feet.

The bottom line is that we are getting more or less data, not that we are perceiving different realities. Perception is how something appears to you in those circumstances. Objectyivity means paying attention to this real relation when you make judgements based upon them, not an "ideal" unembodied knowledge that has no context and no source.

Your first sentence shows me your not grasping what I'm positing. The ball is an independent reality because the mind sees it as such.

Your paragraph about underwater electrical sense - now you're talking about senses, but I'm talking perceptions, I'm talking about how the mind organizes senses.

The ball is not necessarily an independent entity. We perceive the ball to be an independent entity because our relationship with reality is such that to see independent entities such as the ball is more concordant to our own organismic relationship with reality (and to surviving and remaining healthy).

What if a being originated in a gas giant. Would such a being need to have perception of solids even if it had visual (photon-awareness) of gas colors, etc? Probably not, because the environment of such solids is irrelevant. What if the being could move through matter as we know it? Would the being necessarily need to be aware of matter in the same way we are aware of matter?

No, you are trying to steal a concept. You would never, as a child, have been able to come up with the concept mind, if you did not realize that there are entities. Existence is prior to consciousness, and our knowledge of existence is prior to our knowledge of consciousness.

You know of the existence of entities first. Watch a child. He has no concept of mind at the age of four, but he certainly has the concpet of entities. The sort of entities we are prone to recognize first does depend on our scale. If we were smaller we would perceive individual raindrops like seas and larger we would perceive hurricanes like currents at the bathtub drain. But all these things are real and independent existents prior to our trying to grasp them.

Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Can you define "stolen concept" and give a few examples? I am happy to try to help you if you wish to understand. But I am not looking for a debate, nor to convert you out of charity.

[Rich Engle]

How do we know when we are perceiving reality Objectively?

When you go through Taco Bell at 3am, say (for the "Fourth Meal"), and then sometime after, you get a mix of what feels like a headache, and the Aztec Two-Step. That is the first part of the process. Here, you have some of the few choices available; I recommend not ordering the red-hot/lava sauce/volcano models (unless you are highly-experienced, and even then...).

The second part of the process is more painful, but during it, you find fleeting moments of truth. You might finding yourself praying to false Gods, even though you know (what you priorly thought was "deep within," but are now confronted with a new paradigm that usurps such thought(s). More often than not, it is prudent to have bleach-based cleaning products, in spray bottles, involved. Go to places like Dollar General to minimize your outlay. Very soon after this, you must be aware that you might break the ranks and find yourself, strangely, considering "mysticism" on some level, or another.

During this time, you will consider whether or not God<tm> really exists, or not. It is OK to pray to Him, whether you Believe It, Or Not<tm>.

Then you try to sit back down (slowly, be careful) and figure out why you did all that in the first place.

It's either that, or just go smack yourself on something. That is cheaper, and generally a more direct wakeup call.

rde

Always There To Help <tm>

Edited May 31, 2009 by Rich Engle

[tjohnson]

Sorry, the purpose for repeated observation is either to reduce error (not subjectivity) or to look for statistical correlations.

So what do you think the source of "error" is? Is it not intimately connected to subjectivity?

[tjohnson]

First paragraph - No, the ball is an independent reality.

If I cannot perceive an object then it does not exist for me. If I am blind and you say you can see the moon I have to take your word for it because I cannot sense that. What if you were doing acid at the time? Should I believe you?

[Rich Engle]

If I cannot perceive an object then it does not exist for me.

A quality which I find near and dear in opponents when getting stuck into a street fight.

Hey, look over there, it's a BUNNY. Ow.

rde

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain

Edited May 31, 2009 by Rich Engle

[tjohnson]

Something exists independent of us but it is not what is commonly referred to as an object. When we see a pencil on the table the "pencil" is actually an image in our brain and is unique to us. It cannot be shared with anyone else - humans cannot stream video to other humans (yet). When we speak of the pencil having certain characteristics or attributes we are actually referring to an image having attributes. For example, if it is a green pencil (established by wavelength of light) to one person it may appear brown to another (color blind) because it is a different image. So both are correct as long as we are discussing personal images. By using the wavelength we are not speaking about personal images anymore we are speaking about the medium that is used in the production of the images in the cortex.

[thomtg]

If you want to see how a "stolen concept" fallacy grows unchecked to become a mainstream philosophical theory of mind and a basis for modern neuroscience, check out this cartoon series on the epistemology of representationalism.

Did you ever notice there is something very strange about this world of ours.

Really? Like what?

Edited May 31, 2009 by Thom T G

[Christopher]

No, you are trying to steal a concept. You would never, as a child, have been able to come up with the concept mind, if you did not realize that there are entities. Existence is prior to consciousness, and our knowledge of existence is prior to our knowledge of consciousness.

You know of the existence of entities first. Watch a child. He has no concept of mind at the age of four, but he certainly has the concpet of entities. The sort of entities we are prone to recognize first does depend on our scale. If we were smaller we would perceive individual raindrops like seas and larger we would perceive hurricanes like currents at the bathtub drain. But all these things are real and independent existents prior to our trying to grasp them.

Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Can you define "stolen concept" and give a few examples? I am happy to try to help you if you wish to understand. But I am not looking for a debate, nor to convert you out of charity.

You assume I am stealing a concept, but I am not. You are failing to grasp what I am trying to communicate.

A child know of existents first prior to his/her ability to conceptualize that entity. I agree with this. What I am saying is that the way in which a child knows identities is through the act of perception. Perception is a mental process, not a physical process. Sensing is a physical process, perception is a first-level (automatic) mental process, conceptualization is a second-level (volitional) mental process. It sounds like you've read IOE... take a look at it again. You're reducing epistemology into senses/conceptualization and leaving out the act of perception.

Take a look at the McGurk Effect, it exemplifies the psychology of perception to a degree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdyE491KcM

-- The first link gives a short explanation, the second link gives a better example.

[kiaer.ts]

No, you are trying to steal a concept. You would never, as a child, have been able to come up with the concept mind, if you did not realize that there are entities. Existence is prior to consciousness, and our knowledge of existence is prior to our knowledge of consciousness.

You know of the existence of entities first. Watch a child. He has no concept of mind at the age of four, but he certainly has the concpet of entities. The sort of entities we are prone to recognize first does depend on our scale. If we were smaller we would perceive individual raindrops like seas and larger we would perceive hurricanes like currents at the bathtub drain. But all these things are real and independent existents prior to our trying to grasp them.

Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Can you define "stolen concept" and give a few examples? I am happy to try to help you if you wish to understand. But I am not looking for a debate, nor to convert you out of charity.

You assume I am stealing a concept, but I am not. You are failing to grasp what I am trying to communicate.

A child know of existents first prior to his/her ability to conceptualize that entity. I agree with this. What I am saying is that the way in which a child knows identities is through the act of perception. Perception is a mental process, not a physical process. Sensing is a physical process, perception is a first-level (automatic) mental process, conceptualization is a second-level (volitional) mental process. It sounds like you've read IOE... take a look at it again. You're reducing epistemology into senses/conceptualization and leaving out the act of perception.

Take a look at the McGurk Effect, it exemplifies the psychology of perception to a degree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdyE491KcM

-- The first link gives a short explanation, the second link gives a better example.

You'll have to give me at least two examples then of what you mean and what you find problematic, since no, I don't yet get your point.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, that's called evolutionary epistemology or evolutionary theory of the mind. The mind has to work because its an evolved organ, (but its purpose isn't truth, but survival). This can be very strong if properly worked out, but problematic with the wrong premises and emphasis. I am no expert. You should ask Boydstun, he'll have 10 references for you.

Ted,

I don't think in this manner of pigeonholing quickly. Actually I don't believe the "evolutionary theory of the mind" or any other theory is the whole story. As the saying goes, there are too many moving parts. So I don't fall into one camp or other at this stage.

I do believe in a sum of the moving parts, though (and the stationary ones for that matter), and that both evolution and the mind are far more complicated than most people think.

I do need to read more and Stephan is one hell of a great source. That part I do agree with you.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Perception is a mental process, not a physical process. Sensing is a physical process, perception is a first-level (automatic) mental process, conceptualization is a second-level (volitional) mental process.

Don't you think all our various processes are ultimately physical, after all they are occurring in our physical body? Korzybski handles this quite elegantly by using "orders or levels of abstraction". Our perceptions are lower order abstractions while our labels, descriptions, inferences are higher order abstractions. It seems clear that there are levels of cognition at any rate.

[BaalChatzaf]

...... The basis of Rand's vision for Objective reality was that we perceive through the senses, and that we use our cognitive faculties to explain what we're perceiving. ........

"Objective reality" is redundant. What other kind of reality is there, but Objective reality?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

The way I understand perception to work is the following:

1. There exists parts of the body that receive incoming sensory signals (eyes,cochlea, taste buds, olfactory cells, and cutaneous/pain receptors are a few). These translate compatible signals from the external world into electrical impulses that then move to the brain. (photons in the visible range would be considered compatible signals to the rods and cones in the eyes).

2. These electrical impulses are like an amalgamation of data that is transferred into the brain. There is only rudimentary organization of the data at his point (ex. this cone in the eye was triggered, that inner-ear hair cell nerve was triggered). There as yet is no perception of an entity, just analog equivalents of 0-1 so-to-speak.

3. The brain receives these electrical impulses and packages them into a perception of entities, environment, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception:

quote from the Wikipedia link: The major problem in visual perception is that what people see is not simply a translation of retinal stimuli (i.e., the image on the retina). Thus people interested in perception have long struggled to explain what visual processing does to create what we actually see

4. Eventually humans develop and use conceptual faculties to organize perceived entities (identities/units) into categories through isolating characteristics and integrating entities together by a specific definition (according to Rand).

The McGurk effect is one example: our auditory senses receive the sound "Ba." Our visual senses of lip movement receive the word "Ga." These sense-signals enter our brain, our brain tries to integrate all this information together and automatically produces the perception "Da" into our conscious awareness. The word "Da" was neither seen nor spoken, but our brain created a perception of the external sensory information into the sound "Da."

So this middle ground of automation between when we sense the world and prior to those senses being packaged into entities and transferred into conscious awareness is the territory I'm trying to look at, to think about.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Christopher