The Objectivist Theory of Perception vs. Optical Illusions

[sjw]

The Objectivist theory of perception is contained in the first several paragraphs of ITOE.

Consider that, then consider this:

If you make the effort, you can volitionally change the direction the dancer spins. Other optical illusions share this volitional aspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion ). These demonstrate that mental choice and effort can alter our perceptions, which would seem to fly in the face of Ayn Rand's theory that they are to be taken as "given."

Certainly, most everyday objects do not have this kind of ambiguity, or at least, our experience with them causes our first perception to come out as the correct one. However, a policy of automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance looks like a recipe for foolishness to me, which is another way of saying that the first page or so of ITOE looks like a recipe for foolishness to me.

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim

For preacher and monk the honored name!

For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.

Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

I disagree. Optical illusions (so called) aren't shifts of reality. They are usually a person's misinterpretation of a certain event that may involve shifts in light or viewing a certain event from a point of view that may or may not allow them to see said event in its entirety.

The below quoted part of your statement (if not taken in its entirety) seems to imply some sort of whim worshiping or then vieled skepticism on your part. If I am wrong, please clarify.

People can change the course of the spinning woman in their minds, but cannot alter the fact that she is spinning one way with one of her legs up nor change the fundamental nature of what is on display. In other words people can try to bend reality or ignore it but reality will not ignore them.

These demonstrate that mental choice and effort can alter our perceptions, which would seem to fly in the face of Ayn Rand's theory that they are to be taken as "given."

Shayne

Edited November 19, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[Kimmler]

From Wikipedia (on optical illusions) -

Researcher Mark Changizi of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York says optical illusions are due to a neural lag which most humans experience while awake. When light hits the retina, about one-tenth of a second goes by before the brain translates the signal into a visual perception of the world. Scientists have known of the lag, yet they have debated over how humans compensate, with some proposing that our motor system somehow modifies our movements to offset the delay.

Changizi asserts that the human visual system has evolved to compensate for neural delays, generating images of what will occur one-tenth of a second into the future. This foresight enables human to react to events in the present. This allows humans to perform reflexive acts like catching a fly ball and to maneuver smoothly through a crowd.[5] Illusions occur when our brains attempt to perceive the future, and those perceptions don't match reality. For example, one illusion called the Hering illusion, looks like bike spokes around a central point, with vertical lines on either side of this central, so-called vanishing point. The illusion tricks us into thinking we are moving forward, and thus, switches on our future-seeing abilities. Since we aren't actually moving and the figure is static, we misperceive the straight lines as curved ones.

Changizi said:

"Evolution has seen to it that geometric drawings like this elicit in us premonitions of the near future. The converging lines toward a vanishing point (the spokes) are cues that trick our brains into thinking we are moving forward - as we would in the real world, where the door frame (a pair of vertical lines) seems to bow out as we move through it - and we try to perceive what that world will look like in the next instant." [5]

[Mike Renzulli]

The post seems to confirm my initial post unless Kimmler is posting this in response to mine in order to disagree with my comments.

Like the Wikipedia article Kimmler cites states at the beginning:

An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences.

I think this is something similar to what I said in my response and David Kelley pointed out in The Evidence of the Senses.

Because our observations may not be correct viewing certain images does not change their fundamental nature. In the case of this optical illusion, the one cited by sjw and at the Wikipedia article is done purposely to decieve.

In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all.

If we were to see a dancer conducting the same action as in the illusion in the first post on a stage during a ballet it would not change the fundamental nature of the dancer nor our observation which is that the dancer is spinning in a certain direction on one leg with the other elevated.

However, said dancer would be unable to elevate off the ground while conducting her action.

From Wikipedia (on optical illusions) -

"Evolution has seen to it that geometric drawings like this elicit in us premonitions of the near future. The converging lines toward a vanishing point (the spokes) are cues that trick our brains into thinking we are moving forward - as we would in the real world, where the door frame (a pair of vertical lines) seems to bow out as we move through it - and we try to perceive what that world will look like in the next instant." [5]

Edited November 19, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

I disagree. Optical illusions (so called) aren't shifts of reality.

What a weird interpretation. I never said reality shifted. Of course it doesn't. I think this is an example of the Objectivist foolishness I was talking about -- something occurred to you as being the case at first glance, and without a second thought you proceed to further reasonings, carrying on as if your initial assumption is an unquestionable given. Check your premises.

They are usually a person's misinterpretation of a certain event that may involve shifts in light or viewing a certain event from a point of view that may or may not allow them to see said event in its entirety.

The below quoted part of your statement (if not taken in its entirety) seems to imply some sort of whim worshiping or then vieled skepticism on your part. If I am wrong, please clarify.

You seem to be using a wrong (and not even Objectivist) definition of "perception" to be coming to the conclusions you are. No, I'm not advocating subjectivism, though I may be advocating skepticism, depending on one's meaning of the word. I am not advocating Objectivism's meaning of that word, which says that we can't know anything. I am advocating that we know through effort, not by "just knowing." This is skepticism in the original sense, just as liberalism meant liberty in its original sense.

People can change the course of the spinning woman in their minds, but cannot alter the fact that she is spinning one way with one of her legs up. In other words people can try to bend reality or ignore it but they reality will not ignore them.

Your defense mechanism is clearly on high alert. As with the defense mechanism of the religious zealot, it's only defending you from knowing the truth.

There is no "right" way to see the woman spinning. It's an ambiguous image. Here is a more clearly ambiguous image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Two_silhouette_profile_or_a_white_vase.jpg

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

I will respond by quoting what I said above your last post:

Because our observations may not be correct viewing certain images does not change their fundamental nature. In the case of this optical illusion, the one cited by sjw and at the Wikipedia article is done purposely to decieve.

In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all.

If we were to see a dancer conducting the same action as in the illusion in the first post on a stage during a ballet it would not change the fundamental nature of the dancer nor our observation which is that the dancer is spinning in a certain direction on one leg with the other elevated.

However, said dancer would be unable to elevate off the ground while conducting her action.

I disagree. Optical illusions (so called) aren't shifts of reality.

What a weird interpretation. I never said reality shifted. Of course it doesn't. I think this is an example of the Objectivist foolishness I was talking about -- something occurred to you as being the case at first glance, and without a second thought you proceed to further reasonings, carrying on as if your initial assumption is an unquestionable given. Check your premises.

They are usually a person's misinterpretation of a certain event that may involve shifts in light or viewing a certain event from a point of view that may or may not allow them to see said event in its entirety.

The below quoted part of your statement (if not taken in its entirety) seems to imply some sort of whim worshiping or then vieled skepticism on your part. If I am wrong, please clarify.

You seem to be using a wrong (and not even Objectivist) definition of "perception" to be coming to the conclusions you are. No, I'm not advocating subjectivism, though I may be advocating skepticism, depending on one's meaning of the word. I am not advocating Objectivism's meaning of that word, which says that we can't know anything. I am advocating that we know through effort, not by "just knowing." This is skepticism in the original sense, just as liberalism meant liberty in its original sense.

People can change the course of the spinning woman in their minds, but cannot alter the fact that she is spinning one way with one of her legs up. In other words people can try to bend reality or ignore it but they reality will not ignore them.

Your defense mechanism is clearly on high alert. As with the defense mechanism of the religious zealot, it's only defending you from knowing the truth.

There is no "right" way to see the woman spinning. It's an ambiguous image. Here is a more clearly ambiguous image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Two_silhouette_profile_or_a_white_vase.jpg

Shayne

Edited November 19, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Because our observations may not be correct viewing certain images does not change their fundamental nature. In the case of optical illusions, the one cited by sjw and at the Wikipedia article is an illusion done purposely to decieve.

Yours is the reaction of a zealot. The purpose here is not to deceive, it is to isolate an aspect of cognitive faculty. It is an aspect Ayn Rand was oblivious to and got completely wrong, and perhaps that is why it makes you afraid of it. We are clearly able to reorganize sensations into different percepts through cognitive effort, at least in some contexts.

Here's an example of something that takes a good deal of effort to alter one's perception of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stereogram_Tut_Random_Dot_Shark.png

It may be the case that through even higher levels of choice and effort one can dramatically alter one's everyday perception as well. Though it is clear that even ordinary objects can sometimes appear ambiguous. It is difficult for me to recall particular instances, but I vaguely remember where I had to take a second glance at something that appeared to be one thing but it was really something else, or where I had to get a different vantage on something to see what it really was. All of this demonstrates that perception is neither automatic nor automatically correct.

Shayne

[sjw]

In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all.

This is a completely different category. In your example, it is reality that is changed between the two cases -- the light is actually bent. In the examples you think you are responding to, something in the mind changes to alter the perception.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

In the case of putting a pencil in a glass of water the eye sees the pencil broken into 2 parts but in reality this is due to the light giving one the impression that it is bent/broken. Yet when you take the pencil out of the water the pencil is not broken or bent at all.

This is a completely different category. In your example, it is reality that is changed between the two cases -- the light is actually bent. In the examples you think you are responding to, something in the mind changes to alter the perception.

Shayne

Something in the brain. There are optical illusions that won't go away even when they are understood. Some optical illusions are the result of neurologically wired in effects and cannot be thought away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

However, a policy of automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance looks like a recipe for foolishness to me, which is another way of saying that the first page or so of ITOE looks like a recipe for foolishness to me.

What a prescient statement. ;)

Shayne

[sjw]

Something in the brain. There are optical illusions that won't go away even when they are understood. Some optical illusions are the result of neurologically wired in effects and cannot be thought away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wonder how you would measure that. Perhaps some illusions can only be "thought away" (i.e., perceived correctly) by a small minority.

Shayne

[merjet]

Certainly, most everyday objects do not have this kind of ambiguity, or at least, our experience with them causes our first perception to come out as the correct one. However, a policy of automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance looks like a recipe for foolishness to me, which is another way of saying that the first page or so of ITOE looks like a recipe for foolishness to me.

What foolish talk. Rand there said nothing about "automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance" or about illusions. Her main point was to say that perception is the base of all knowledge.

The spinning dancer, the Necker cube, and rabbit-duck are cases of different perspectives of impoverished stimuli. When the dancer spins clockwise, her right leg is out front. When she spins counter-clockwise, her left leg is out front.

[sjw]

What foolish talk. Rand there said nothing about "automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance" or about illusions. Her main point was to say that perception is the base of all knowledge.

What a foolish interpretation. Of course she didn't literally say that. I say it's implied in what she did say. Which is that perception is a given. Clearly it is not a given, it can be wrong, and to base all of our knowledge on something that can be wrong and that can be effected by volition is foolish and is tantamount to "automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance."

The spinning dancer, the Necker cube, and rabbit-duck are cases of different perspectives of impoverished stimuli. When the dancer spins clockwise, her right leg is out front. When she spins counter-clockwise, her left leg is out front.

Well, your ability to recognize what is there does not speak to your ability to integrate it with the rest of your knowledge. Explain how to reconcile "perception is automatic and the given" with the fact that perception can shift one way or another with mental effort.

This may seem to be a small point but ambiguity is even more common at more abstract levels, using this same infallibility assumption in that realm is disastrous. I think this explains at least in part the dogmatism of so many Objectivists.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Certainly, most everyday objects do not have this kind of ambiguity, or at least, our experience with them causes our first perception to come out as the correct one. However, a policy of automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance looks like a recipe for foolishness to me, which is another way of saying that the first page or so of ITOE looks like a recipe for foolishness to me.

What foolish talk. Rand there said nothing about "automatically relying on what things appear to be at first glance" or about illusions. Her main point was to say that perception is the base of all knowledge.

The spinning dancer, the Necker cube, and rabbit-duck are cases of different perspectives of impoverished stimuli. When the dancer spins clockwise, her right leg is out front. When she spins counter-clockwise, her left leg is out front.

Exactly. This is not a real image of a spinning dancer. It is a black blob on a computer screen with a few characteristics which call to mind a spinning dancer, a very impoverished stimulus. Kelley covers this ad nauseam.

[sjw]

Exactly. This is not a real image of a spinning dancer. It is a black blob on a computer screen with a few characteristics which call to mind a spinning dancer, a very impoverished stimulus. Kelley covers this ad nauseam.

This is, of course, utterly beside the point. The illusion helps isolate the volitional aspect of perception. And the fact that perception has a volitional component contradicts Rand's theory of perception.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Exactly. This is not a real image of a spinning dancer. It is a black blob on a computer screen with a few characteristics which call to mind a spinning dancer, a very impoverished stimulus. Kelley covers this ad nauseam.

This is, of course, utterly beside the point. The illusion helps isolate the volitional aspect of perception. And the fact that perception has a volitional component contradicts Rand's theory of perception.

Shayne

Beside the point? That this is an impoverished stimulus is the centrally relevant fact.

You are talking about the volitional aspect of attention. That perception is affected by attention is not a problem for Rand or unmentioned by Kelley.

Rand's purpose was to communicate her ideas economically, not to forestall contrarian nitpicking.

Why not try presenting Kelley's arguments in a strong form and try criticizing them? This strawman attack in ignorance of his work refutes nothing.

(санатик фледующей)

[sjw]

Beside the point? That this is an impoverished stimulus is the centrally relevant fact.

It's beside the point. You are not even close to following along.

You are talking about the volitional aspect of attention. That perception is affected by attention is not a problem for Rand or unmentioned by Kelley.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. You are confused.

Rand's purpose was to communicate her ideas economically, not to forestall contrarian nitpicking.

As Einstein said, explanations should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. It's not "nitpicking" when something is wrong.

Why not try presenting Kelley's arguments in a strong form and try criticizing them? This strawman attack in ignorance of his work refutes nothing.

What precisely is it that you think I'm trying to refute? And I'm talking about Rand here not Kelly, I haven't read his work, nor should I need to in order to criticize ITOE.

Shayne

[sjw]

(санатик фледующей)

Interesting revelation of psychology.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Rather than go around in speculative circles, I have a suggestion. I uncovered one of the best scientific descriptions of how perception occurs while looking into mind/body stuff. (I admit to a hankering in that direction, as is evident in my approach and attitudes.)

There is a scientist, Bruce Lipton, who is exceptionally gifted at making perception easily understandable to the layman from the molecular level on up (although he is not really any great shakes as a public speaker).

Basically, Rand was right in that our perceptual mechanism is infallible (when healthy and in proper working order, of course). The problem comes after the perception is recorded into memory--and then retrieved for conscious thought.

If you want to find fault with Objectivist epistemology, there is a big honking omission in the literature: memory. I have yet to see speculations about memory from an Objectivist viewpoint, much less a theory of memory. I noticed this even back in the 1970's when I was plowing through ITOE on a Randian high and not understanding a goddam word.

Whether people agree or not with Lipton's conclusions about belief (and how thoughts can affect genes), he is a bona fide cell biologist with lots of works published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and, apparently, he was cloning cells many years before stem cell biology became a thing. Here is his CV: Curriculum Vita of Bruce H. Lipton.

A word of warning. Some inspirational speakers use Lipton's work as grounds for their own mystical speculations (often with Lipton's blessing). Don't let that keep you from looking at his scientific facts (nor his criticism of scientific dogma, which is often presented with it's own religious zeal even as it later reverses itself). They are fascinating.

Here is a video of a lecture Dr. Bruce Lipton did, but I can't tell you precisely when or where. It is presented by a firm called Spirit 2000 and the person introducing him looks like Doug Parks, who has a radio show called Science for Life (and Lipton mentioned "Doug" in the video). From taking hints in the video and bouncing around all over the Internet, I think this lecture took place in 2001 at a Caring Center International talk (this is a support group for AIDS victims) in Memphis TN, but I can't be sure.

The video is called The New Biology - Where Mind and Matter Meet. It's free and Lipton uploaded it to Google Video himself. (I first saw it on DVD, though.) It runs over 2 1/2 hours, so set aside some time. I assure you, you will not regret it (but be careful not to be turned off by the first 5 minutes or so which is a bit lame--when Lipton gets going, it gets really interesting). On the contrary, after seeing this lecture, you will have much more solid biological grounds for evaluating Rand's conclusions, even if you dismiss Lipton's final destination. It's like an overview (and a very thorough introduction) to cell biology and perception.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8506668136396723343&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6568107389365915765&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Michael

[sjw]

Thanks for the info Michael, I'll look at it later.

It does seem though that you (and he?) are confusing sensation with perception, as only sensation can be reducible to the cellular level; perception is a higher-level cognitive function that integrates the sensations into the mental identification of an object.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shaye,

That sensation versus percept thing is another Randism that is not precise. You can't divorce the nervous system from the brain, but in her speculation, you can.

Anyway, where did she get her information from--the part where she declared that sensations are not stored in memory? That's one of the few things she wrote about memory and I believe it is as wrong as can be.

So I no longer accept her sensation-percept division as separate facets of awareness, although I do keep other basic parts of her epistemology.

Michael

[sjw]

Shaye,

That sensation versus percept thing is another Randism that is not precise. You can't divorce the nervous system from the brain, but in her speculation, you can.

I can't speak to Rand's distinction because she didn't define what she meant by "sensation" (as far as I know) but my distinction is precise enough for philosophical purposes. A sensation in my definition is a discrete sensory input, such as is received by an individual cell in the eye, or by an individual nerve in the skin. Our vision is not unlike a CCD, where light falls on a given portion and is carried discretely to the brain to be integrated with the other light sensations. A percept on the other hand is the mental identification of what object caused a given group of sensations.

You don't need a scientific understanding of cells to come to the proper concept of sensations, but it helps. Percepts on the other hand cannot be understood with science alone, at least not at this point in history. That is why I am skeptical of that video you posted -- it can't possibly deal with percepts in a rigorous way, scientists just don't know that much about the mechanics of consciousness yet, and that's where percepts are finally integrated.

Anyway, where did she get her information from--the part where she declared that sensations are not stored in memory? That's one of the few things she wrote about memory and I believe it is as wrong as can be.

So I no longer accept her sensation-percept division as separate facets of awareness, although I do keep other basic parts of her epistemology.

Michael

The division is sound. At the one end of the scale is raw sensory input, at the other end is an integrated grasp of what is causing the sensation. It's an important epistemological issue how we do that integration, where it could go wrong, how we advance from there to abstractions. All our evidence comes from our senses, so grasping the nature of each link in the chain is important.

But I think you're probably right about memory and sensations. For example, one can remember getting pricked by a pin (even if one didn't perceive it as a pin, but just as a sharp pain in some spot).

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Shaye,

That sensation versus percept thing is another Randism that is not precise. You can't divorce the nervous system from the brain, but in her speculation, you can.

I can't speak to Rand's distinction because she didn't define what she meant by "sensation" (as far as I know) but my distinction is precise enough for philosophical purposes. A sensation in my definition is a discrete sensory input, such as is received by an individual cell in the eye, or by an individual nerve in the skin. Our vision is not unlike a CCD, where light falls on a given portion and is carried discretely to the brain to be integrated with the other light sensations. A percept on the other hand is the mental identification of what object caused a given group of sensations.

You don't need a scientific understanding of cells to come to the proper concept of sensations, but it helps. Percepts on the other hand cannot be understood with science alone, at least not at this point in history. That is why I am skeptical of that video you posted -- it can't possibly deal with percepts in a rigorous way, scientists just don't know that much about the mechanics of consciousness yet, and that's where percepts are finally integrated.

Anyway, where did she get her information from--the part where she declared that sensations are not stored in memory? That's one of the few things she wrote about memory and I believe it is as wrong as can be.

So I no longer accept her sensation-percept division as separate facets of awareness, although I do keep other basic parts of her epistemology.

Michael

The division is sound. At the one end of the scale is raw sensory input, at the other end is an integrated grasp of what is causing the sensation. It's an important epistemological issue how we do that integration, where it could go wrong, how we advance from there to abstractions. All our evidence comes from our senses, so grasping the nature of each link in the chain is important.

But I think you're probably right about memory and sensations. For example, one can remember getting pricked by a pin (even if one didn't perceive it as a pin, but just as a sharp pain in some spot).

Shayne

Have you read Kelley? Why do you not take him into account?

[sjw]

Have you read Kelley? Why do you not take him into account?

I have not read his book, so no, I can't take it into account. I'm not opposed to reading it, I just haven't happened to have read it. The only book of his I've read is the "Truth and Toleration".

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Watch the video. I know you will be surprised. Selectivity and grouping occur at the sensation level on the cell, through the inputs.

This guy has also removed the DNA from cells and they have continued to function perfectly for months. His idea is that memory (or partial memory) is on the cell's membrane.

And he deals with how this stuff is integrated in the brain.

Or don't watch the video.

Whatever...

Michael