Why We Cannot Perceive the World Objectively

Buddy

The Living Force
Why We Cannot Perceive the World Objectively
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/237883-Why-We-Cannot-Perceive-the-World-Objectively

Hi all!
I found this to be a really interesting article. I wanted to comment in various places and compare my thoughts with other readers who may have any input.

First, the author states:

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
People tend to think of perception as a passive process. We see, hear, smell, taste or feel stimuli that impinge upon our senses. We think that if we are at all objective, we record what is actually there. Yet perception is demonstrably an active rather than a passive process; it constructs rather than records "reality."[/quote]

Yet, his own description contains the evidence that perception is both an active as well as passive process. There is the data that our sensory apparatus receives (passive?) and from which we can experience raw cognition, then there is the interpretation or meaning that is assigned to part or all of the data (active?). Interpretations are indeed constructed both automatically and consciously in-the-moment. The inability to discern the difference between the data received and the meanings it is given is one of the problems addressed in the Work.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Perception implies understanding as well as awareness.[/quote]

I think maybe that is backwards. To me, understanding implies both awareness and perception.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
It is a process of inference in which people construct their own version of reality on the basis of information provided through the five senses.[/quote]

Well, there may be more than just five categories of senses or five specific senses, but essentially I agree, though this statement does not seem to really support the assertion that preceded it, if that was the author's intention.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
In the illustration a grid appears normal in the center, yet the left and right areas are irregular and incoherent. If you stare at the center of the grid for a few minutes, the grid will miraculously heal itself and you will perceive a perfect grid. In reality, the grid is still incoherent but your mind will perceive it as a perfect grid. This is because your mind is strongly influenced by your past experiences, education, cultural values and role requirements as well as by the stimuli recorded by their receptor organs. Your mind expects the grid to be a perfect grid and makes it so.[/quote]

I like the grid example, though it was a bit hard on the eyes. After a moment of staring at the center as requested, I noticed the visual field of the grid distort in such a way that when the lines straightened out, the background pattern became visible. This seems to be a demonstration of a persons predominant hemispheric focal point - which "half" of the brain he typically views his moment-by-moment experience from?

The main reason I say that is because I was naturally viewing from linear perspective to read the article, so when I began staring at the grid, I could feel the visual distortion when my focal point shifted to where the pattern/colors could be perceived. At least that was my subjective perception of what happened. So, for the grid to become coherent, I had to be able to see the patterns of whatever was behind the incoherency.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Perception is also skewed by the observer's own expectations, assumptions and preconceptions.

One classic experiment to demonstrate the influence of expectations on perception used playing cards, some of which were gimmicked so the spades were red and the hearts black. Pictures of the cards were flashed briefly on a screen and, needless to say, the test subjects identified the normal cards more quickly and accurately than the anomalous ones. After test subjects became aware of the existence of red spades and black hearts, their performance with the gimmicked cards improved but still did not approach the speed or accuracy with which normal cards could be identified.[/quote]

Yep, because they were not normal cards and practice makes more perfect.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
This experiment shows that patterns of expectation become so deeply embedded that they continue to influence perceptions even when people are alerted to and try to take account of the existence of data that do not fit their preconceptions.[/quote]

Yep, the Cassiopaean experiment shows this too in so many places.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Trying to be objective does not ensure accurate perception.[/quote]

Yep, that's why the Work is work. At least a person who is trying has a chance maybe.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
In the illustration, read the colors of the words aloud. The colors not the words.

This task is difficult, as I'm sure you've discovered. Not only is it difficult but it is resistant to practice. The difficulty of removing the interference effect of the words when trying to state the colors is because our brains are conditioned to recognize words without effort. In other words, people see the meaning or words without much effort or consciousness. On the other hand, naming colors is not automatic. It requires more effort than reading, thus creating interference in this simple task. Our pattern of the expectation of reading words is so deeply embedded it cannot be turned off and creates the interference with the task of naming colors.[/quote]

I think this is an awesome statement! It shows the narrator's linguistic perceptual apparatus overlaying and dominating the inductive "looking for something mode" cognition. Yay Michael!

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INTELLIGENCE AND GOVERNMENTS. The position of the test subject identifying playing cards is analogous to that of the intelligence analyst or government leader trying to make sense of the paper flow that crosses his or her desk. What is actually perceived in that paper flow, as well as how it is interpreted depends in part, at least, on the analyst's patterns of expectation. Intelligence analysts do not just have expectations about the color of hearts and spades. They have a set of assumptions and expectations about the motivations of people and the processes of government in foreign countries. Events consistent with these expectations are perceived and processed easily, while events that contradict prevailing expectations tend to be ignored or distorted in perception.[/quote]

Pretty much common sense for the most part, I think. Or maybe it should be.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Of course, this distortion is a subconscious or pre-conscious process.[/quote]

Yep, Lobaczewski covers "selection and substitution" in Political Ponerology. The addiction chapter in the online Wave also describes the process.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
This tendency of people to perceive what they expect to perceive is more important than any tendency to perceive what they want to perceive. In fact, there is no real tendency toward wishful thinking. The commonly cited evidence supporting the claim that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive can generally be explained equally well by people see what they expect to see.[/quote]

OK.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. Look at the illustration. Do not read further content until you guess as to what the illustration might represent.[/quote]

To me, the image was so ambiguous, or the contrast so sharp, that a guess could not be made. IOW, my brain made the effort to guess but didn't try so hard to "make" something out of it just because the author said to.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Expectations have many diverse sources, including past experience, professional training, and cultural and organizational norms. All these influences predispose us to pay particular attention to certain kinds of information and to organize and interpret this information in certain ways. Perception is also influenced by the context in which it occurs.[/quote]

I agree. And with regard to the last sentence above, generally speaking, the act of someone "pre-framing" an upcoming happening also influences what and how an observer will perceive the happening. In fact, there is also a "pre-framing" example in the "moral" realm where researchers have demonstrated that subject's moral judgements and decisions can be influenced by the researchers controlling the emotional context of the test situation, or emotional condition of the participants involved.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Now, suppose I tell you the illustration contains the face of a cow. Can you find it? You will find it if you expect to find it.[/quote]

Well, for me, I expected to find it, but didn't. Perhaps with a different image results would have been better.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Patterns of expectations tell us, subconsciously, what to look for, what is important, and how to interpret what is seen. These patterns form a mind-set that predisposes the black and white spaces to organize themselves in such a way that you can perceive the face of a cow. This perception is formed on the basis of very little information (i.e., you were told the illustration contained the picture of a cow.).[/quote]

I'm aware of the principle and agree with it. It just didn't happen for me at the time.

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
Once people form impressions on the basis of very little information, they do not reject or change them unless they obtain rather solid evidence. The early but incorrect impression tends to persist because the amount of information necessary to invalidate a hypothesis is considerably greater than the amount of information required to make an initial interpretation. The problem is not that there is any inherent difficulty in grasping new perceptions or new ideas, but that established perceptions are extremely difficult to change.[/quote]

Whole-heartedly agree! At other times with similar tests, when I DID see a familiar "something", yet it wasn't what the author wanted me to see, it was very hard to "let go" of the previous image. Same with 'first impressions'?

[quote author=Michael Michalko]
I promise you that every time from now on you see this illustration, you will immediately see the face of the cow.[/quote]

Well, I will now, because I did finally see it. I had used my cursor to select the text and pic for copying and then I paused. With the "select" color/tint overlaying the image, the "blended" effect happened and I saw the cow looking my way. Its body was at an angle that required its face to turn to its left in order to look towards me. Was it the blending effect of the additional overlay of highlight color that was key, a simple softening of contrast, both, or something else?

All in all, I really enjoyed reading and reflecting on this article. Thanks for the find!


-----------------------------------
Edit:
Added links
modified phrasing for clarity
 
I enjoyed your assessment on this article. I saw the cow after it was told what it was, but on the other hand I found the name/color test very easy. I can't be the only one though because I don't see how that color test could be difficult at all. It's like just focus and do it.
 
Enjoyed the article and analysis as well. The grid one was finicky for me. It took a while before I was able to see it "heal" (maybe I was too close to the screen at first?). The color/word challenge is one that I've seen before. I find that I can name the colors about as fast as I can read the words, but it requires a change of "mode" to keep the words from interfering. It seems to take more concentration.

The "ink blot" type image was interesting. I noticed the grid type pattern in the lower left and thought it was most likely a fence, and I noticed what could be ears and a snout, so I guessed that it might be a white dog with black ears. This was only after studying the image a bit. Like Bud, it took a while for me to see the cow after it was pointed out.
 
Back
Top Bottom