The Objectivist Theory of Perception vs. Optical Illusions

[sjw]

This is a fascinating effect:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/schizoillusion

Evidently, only those who are somehow mentally deranged can "beat" this illusion and see the actual reality.

Shayne

I did a little more research on this, it's hasty to say you're "deranged" if you can beat the illusion, although there is some statistical correlation of derangement with being able to "beat" it. My opinion is that one could probably learn to beat it with some effort, just as one can learn to switch what way the dancer spins.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

What your last statement is is just that: an opinion.

Remember, epistemology is the theory of acquiring knowledge. Unlike science which uses testable hypothesis and studies to determine actual outcomes, epistemology requires that for something to be knowledge or be known, it has to be true in every way.

Having a limitation on what you know is not the same as knowing nothing. When people become convinced that they cannot decide what is and is not the truth they go out and do their best using evidence grounded in reality to find out.

The correct way to do this is to trust their minds and senses as well as other sources of knowledge and then come to a conclusion. If someone discovers more evidence that proves their initial conclusion incorrect then they change their minds.

As you may know this is what Objectivist, if not philosophical, Epistemology is all about.

Subscribing to anything else, such as the skepticism you seem to be communicating, can affect a person's ability to live. Including one's ability to think and reason which is essential for a person's means of survival.

The most essential skill that is acquired by learning about epistemology is to empower people to distinguish illusion from truth.

This includes preventing oneself from being conned or lied to while being able to determine who is and is not telling the truth.

Your post and responses to replies seems to imply a larger message that people can't really know the truth (i.e. no one can really know anything about anything).

So, I will leave it to you to explain how it is that your point of view enables you to know that no one can't really know anything about anything.

I did a little more research on this, it's hasty to say you're "deranged" if you can beat the illusion, although there is some statistical correlation of derangement with being able to "beat" it. My opinion is that one could probably learn to beat it with some effort, just as one can learn to switch what way the dancer spins.

Shayne

Edited December 1, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

What your last statement is is just that: an opinion.

Surprisingly enough, that's why I used the word "opinion."

...

Subscribing to anything else, such as the skepticism you seem to be communicating, can affect a person's ability to live. Including one's ability to think and reason which is essential for a person's means of survival.

The most essential skill that is acquired by learning about epistemology is to empower people to distinguish illusion from truth.

This includes preventing oneself from being conned or lied to while being able to determine who is and is not telling the truth.

Your post and responses to replies seems to imply a larger message that people can't really know the truth (i.e. no one can really know anything about anything).

So, I will leave it to you to explain how it is that your point of view enables you to know that no one can't really know anything about anything.

You seem afraid to find out that Rand was fallible. How would it effect your personal identity to know that she was wrong, not just about some minor point, but something of fundamental philosophic significance? Nothing in my view implies subjectivism. On the contrary, your view does. You are the one denying basic facts about reality and consciousness in order to satisfy your whim to believe that Rand is God.

There is nothing subjective in saying that sometimes we need to consider multiple vantage points in order to ascertain what something is. The point is that knowing is an active process. If you just sit back passively waiting for reality to impress infallible perceptions onto your mind you're going to wind up, well, precisely where you are.

Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

I never said nor do I believe Ayn Rand is God. When have I ever said or implied that she was infallible? Won't hear it from me. And I would be curious to know what (in your mind) makes my statements objecting and responding to yours subjectivism?

By making a claim such as this you seem to be looking to argue just for the sake of argument or you may not really know what you are talking about. If that's the case consider this my last response.

You seem afraid to find out that Rand was fallible. How would it effect your personal identity to know that she was wrong, not just about some minor point, but something of fundamental philosophic significance? Nothing in my view implies subjectivism. On the contrary, your view does. You are the one denying basic facts about reality and consciousness in order to satisfy your whim to believe that Rand is God.

I am not afraid of finding out because (much to your surprise) I already know she was. If she was wrong I am sure (despite your claim to the contrary) that it was on minor points and not of any significance to have diluted her contributions to philsophy. Especially epistemology.

In your view, are all vantage points to be considered equally? In terms of human discovery and seeking truth should people consider consulting psychic mediums to discover answers with problems they maybe having or in looking for how life began should what is written in the Bible be considered as a valid source equal to books by Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin?

I think not since to consider multiple vantage points means that the ones that are not just realistic but just plain stupid really being considered equal to information sources that discuss actual facts degenerates into people not knowing what the truth is. Your key statement is something very similar to Thomas Kuhn's writings regarding scientific and human knowledge.

There has to be an objective method for people to differentiate good sources of information from the bad. That's what epistemology can assist people in doing. If there is none then the end result is nothing more than skepticism which results in people giving up the ability to think.

There is nothing subjective in saying that sometimes we need to consider multiple vantage points in order to ascertain what something is. The point is that knowing is an active process. If you just sit back passively waiting for reality to impress infallible perceptions onto your mind you're going to wind up, well, precisely where you are.

Shayne

Edited December 1, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[sjw]

Mike:

1. Why do you post over the top of what you are responding to?

2. It appears to me that you have not read this thread. In any case you aren't addressing any of the specific arguments, you're just swinging wildly with generalizations that miss their target. Are you afraid to deal with the specific points, or did you just not understand them? In particular, the subject here is Rand's theory of automatic and infallible perception and the cases that demonstrate that her theory is false. For example, the mask illusion. We generally automatically perceive out when it's really in -- unless we change our vantage point. To know that our perceptions can be false doesn't say we can't come to truth, it says we have to be careful. Rand's theory causes carelessness, which explains Objectivists I think.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is a fascinating effect:

http://www.wired.com.../schizoillusion

Evidently, only those who are somehow mentally deranged can "beat" this illusion and see the actual reality.

Shayne,

I just got around to looking at this and it is really fascinating. I am going to embed the video and repost the link below with a quote.

I recommend everyone to see the video for a bit of mind-blowing. It's quite short.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Schizophrenic Brains Not Fooled by Optical Illusion

By Lizzie Buchen

April 7, 2009

Wired

From the article:

Schizophrenia sufferers aren't fooled by an optical illusion known as the "hollow mask" that the rest of us fall for because connections between the sensory and conceptual areas of their brains might be on the fritz.

. . .

"Our top-down processing holds memories, like stock models," explains Danai Dima of Hannover Medical University, in Germany, co-author of a study in NeuroImage. "All the models in our head have a face coming out, so whenever we see a face, of course if has to come out."

This powerful expectation overrides visual cues, like shadows and depth information, that indicate anything to the contrary.

This is physical. There are literally more dendrites and axons dedicated to the "whole" of faces in the frontoparietal network of normal people than schizophrentics, at least this is indicated by the brain scans. And this causes us to see an illusion rather than what is real.

This is literally the physical result in the brain of integration and induction.

I was very amused by this:

Schizophrenics aren't the only ones who see the concave face — people who are drunk or high can also 'beat' the illusion. A similar disconnect between what the brain sees and what it expects to see may be occurring during these drug-induced states.

I'm glad I only read this now instead of back when I was using drugs.

Just imagine what I would have done if I realized that I was actually seeing straight by using them!

Hell, I wouldn't even be here...

Michael

[excidy]

In an altered state of consciousness (when hypnotized), it is possible to touch one with a piece of ice and witness a blister being formed on that spot of the skin. The hypnotized person is told that he is being touched with a hot coal and that's what he expects.

It may be so that both sensations and perceptions are changed depending upon the state of mind one is in. As one volitionally changes one's state of mind, both sensations and perceptions seem to adjust accordingly to make it so.

Also, intent seems to be a contributing factor.

Hmm.... what do you think?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Stephan

[anthony]

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

Shayne,

I do believe you are over-simplifying Rand's thinking on perception. As a first rank intake of data, vision is obviously and self-evidently not completely infallible.

But we have the capability to self-correct visual ambiguities as we go along.

In fact, if one is a photographer or artist, it is essential to learn to disregard this ability, in order to visualize objects like a child again, with no cognitive re-adjustment.(If I can call it that.)

American photographers Minor White and Ansell Adams coined the term "pre-visualization" - the practice of viewing the finished photograph in one's 'mind's eye', while still looking at the subject. It becomes a habit after long practice, to be able to 'see' a subject (a building, let's say) from different possible vantage points - different sides, the top - while only standing one place.

(I may be slightly off-topic, but this seemed relevant.)

My points being, is any different view of an object invalid?

Don't they all reinforce the object's reality?

The eye can be fooled, but not permanently.

Seeing more than "one side of a thing", ultimately builds a more substantial concept, doesn't it?

Tony

[Selene]

In an altered state of consciousness (when hypnotized), it is possible to touch one with a piece of ice and witness a blister being formed on that spot of the skin. The hypnotized person is told that he is being touched with a hot coal and that's what he expects.

It may be so that both sensations and perceptions are changed depending upon the state of mind one is in. As one volitionally changes one's state of mind, both sensations and perceptions seem to adjust accordingly to make it so.

Also, intent seems to be a contributing factor.

Hmm.... what do you think?

Stephan:

Welcome to OL. Are you a student or a worker slave for the state?

Any source for that hypnosis blister statement?

Adam

Edited December 2, 2010 by Selene

[sjw]

Shayne,

I do believe you are over-simplifying Rand's thinking on perception.

Got a citation to back that up? I'm citing the first page or so of ITOE. Looking at the Lexicon just now, it doesn't help her case.

As a first rank intake of data, vision is obviously and self-evidently not completely infallible.

But we have the capability to self-correct visual ambiguities as we go along.

In fact, if one is a photographer or artist, it is essential to learn to disregard this ability, in order to visualize objects like a child again, with no cognitive re-adjustment.(If I can call it that.)

American photographers Minor White and Ansell Adams coined the term "pre-visualization" - the practice of viewing the finished photograph in one's 'mind's eye', while still looking at the subject. It becomes a habit after long practice, to be able to 'see' a subject (a building, let's say) from different possible vantage points - different sides, the top - while only standing one place.

(I may be slightly off-topic, but this seemed relevant.)

My points being, is any different view of an object invalid?

Don't they all reinforce the object's reality?

The eye can be fooled, but not permanently.

Seeing more than "one side of a thing", ultimately builds a more substantial concept, doesn't it?

I don't see the point of your questions...

Shayne

[excidy]

from (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arrogance}

arrogance (usually uncountable; plural arrogances)

1. The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. Closely related to the act of arrogating.

if you agree with at least part of this definition, click "like" ;)

as far as the source for hypnosis thing, I think it was in this book, can't remember correctly though.

http://www.amazon.com/Intention-Experiment-Using-Thoughts-Change/dp/0743276957

Edited December 2, 2010 by Stephan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephan,

Ditto echoing Selene. Welcome to OL.

Mind can influence the cells.

If you have the time and you are interested in getting a pretty good biological grounding on why, I highly suggest the video by Bruce Lipton in this post.

It's a bit long, but I found it just as mind-blowing as the video above about the Charlie Chaplin mask.

Michael

[excidy]

Thank you Michael!

I read your posts, and I see why you suggested it to me. We cannot ignore the fact that the process of intentional thinking affects DNA.

I have read parts of his book "The biology of belief". However, I need to do a more thorough reading of it again.

People who refuse to account for the evidence he presents, are the ones who have chosen not to see and "blank out".

[Selene]

This is from NPR:

Since your tax dollars are paying for it, you might as well enjoy this one which won the best illusion for 2010:

Your Lying Eyes: Can This Be Happening?

"You have two eyes.

Each eye sees a slightly different world. (Put a finger in front of your face, switch from one eye open to the other and that finger will shift, just a little bit.) But rather than walk around all day seeing in double vision, your brain pulls the world back into one-ness.

Brains decide what we see. Kokichi Sugihara knows this better than anyone. He makes videos that trick your brain into seeing things that you know, you absolutely know, can't happen."

[BaalChatzaf]

This is from NPR:

Since your tax dollars are paying for it, you might as well enjoy this one which won the best illusion for 2010:

Your Lying Eyes: Can This Be Happening?

"You have two eyes.

Each eye sees a slightly different world. (Put a finger in front of your face, switch from one eye open to the other and that finger will shift, just a little bit.) But rather than walk around all day seeing in double vision, your brain pulls the world back into one-ness.

Brains decide what we see. Kokichi Sugihara knows this better than anyone. He makes videos that trick your brain into seeing things that you know, you absolutely know, can't happen."

The Ames Room is another such illusion. Knowing what is gong on and how it works does not make the illusion go away. Even motion pictures of the Ames Room still maintain the illusion. The illusion is wired in.

See

Ba'al Chatzaf