Brain: Constructs rather than mirrors reality

[coberst]

Brain: Constructs rather than mirrors reality

 

Thomas Kuhn, in his famous book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, explains the difficult we have with recognizing and accepting experiences that contradict our anticipations.

 

Kuhn details some of the problems that arose while scientists discovered such scientific anomalies as X-ray and oxygen.

 

As Kuhn observed:

“Novelty emerges with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a back drop provided by expectation. Initially, only the anticipated and usual are experienced even under circumstances where anomaly is later to be discovered…Further acquaintance, however, does result of awareness of something wrong…[which] opens a period in which perceptual categories are adjusted until the initially anomalous has become the anticipated.”

 

He concludes: “What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.”

 

Kuhn provides us with an experiment performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman undertaken to illuminate this human characteristic of seeing only what we are prepared to see.

 

Subjects were shown standard playing cards mixed with the anomalous card a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. Subjects repeatedly and erroneously identified the anomalous cards as a six of hearts or a four of spades. Some, even after the experiment was over, displayed confusion and even anger at the experiment. Only after repeated exposures to the cards did the subjects slowly feel something was askew here. Only after forty exposures did the subjects correctly identify the cards.

[HydrogenBond]

I called the affect sensory expectation. It appears to be based on how instinct works. For example, if we get hungry our mind is expecting to see food. In other words, the mind will filter the environment so the sensory input overlays the expectation provided by the instinct. If there is a match, then we reach for it and make preparations to eat. Even on a diet, when hunger sets in, images of food appear in the imagination. One may not allow this expectation to overlap, filtering out the expectation of ice cream, with carrot sticks.

 

What is interesting, near the end of the good food stockpile, from a last shopping trip, when it is about time to shop again, one may get hungry, sensory expecting to see something good to eat. But the refrigerator is nearly empty or has just the dud food. The lingering hunger will start to lower expectations. Eventually, the leftovers start to look good when they can satisfy lower sensory expectation. The first cycle is both taste and hunger, then mostly hunger with expectations starting to lower.

 

From this, the correlation appears to go like this. The faster one is trying to satisfy the expectation, the lower their expectations. This would make it harder to see new things that are not test proven to satisfy. We need to eat right now with tradition the fastest food.

 

As we lower the potential or increase the time scale needed to satisfy the sensory expectation, the expectations begin to increase. One is able to hold out longer and maybe learn or taste a bunch of things.

 

If we lower the potential even further and increase the time scale, one may hold out even longer, for that nebulous something that exceeds sensory expectations. It may not even be there, yet, but one knows that delicacy is out there somewhere. At that point, data can come into awareness.

[modest]

I generally agree with the expectations of a paradigm that Kuhn talks about. But it can be taken too far. I’ve heard it said that the Native Americans who first saw Columbus’ ships arriving in the new world didn’t see them. The ships were invisible to the Natives who had no previous experience with which to understand the sight.

 

This is untrue I’m sure and it is taking the idea of preconception too far. No doubt the Natives didn’t understand what they were seeing. Their brain would have done its best to classify the sight according to what it knew. Is it a floating island? Is it a big canoe? Is it an animal? Having no reference for something is entirely different from ignoring it.

 

The brain does filter things from the conscious mind. It filters what it expects to see. The playing card example performed by Bruner and Postman from the OP is a good example. The biggest difference between a six of hearts and a six of spades is the color. The brain can use certain cues like color to identify the card and filter out other information. The things that are least filtered by the brain are what we don’t expect to see. If someone walked into a shopping mall they wouldn’t closely examine all the people. But, if the mall were completely empty of people they would take notice and examine the situation.

 

This leads me to believe some of Kuhn’s conclusions about the paradigm of science hiding anomalies are exaggerated. In the setting of science, or any setting, the anomalies and the unexpected are what stick out the most. Far from being invisible, I think Columbus’ ships would have demanded the Native American’s attention like nothing had before in their life.

 

I think Kuhn doesn't give enough credit to the usefulness of the old paradigm in making a paradigm shift. It's good to have a foundation to build on. That is, in fact, what Einstein was doing. He wasn't so much creating a new paradigm from scratch, but building on what Newton set up. Someone outside the Newtonian foundation couldn't have gotten to relativity.

 

-modest

[jedaisoul]

The claim that the brain constructs "reality" depends on a common usage of the term "reality" which, imho, is misleading. What the brain constructs is a subjective view of reality. If that view corresponds to that of others then it gains a degree of objectivity. These may be referred to as being a "subjective reality" or an "objective reality", but, I would suggest that neither of these actually merit the term "reality".

 

Reality is what exists whether we are conscious of it or not. Subjective and objective views of reality are mental constructs, not the reality that those constructs are based on.

 

Now, that interpretation is fundamental to the whole of science and scientific thought, but it is not the only philosophic view that is possible. Philosophically, we cannot prove that reality actually exists outside our experience of it. So it can, and has, be argued that reality is subjective. However, that argument is untenable because it puts all subjective realities on an equal footing. So:

• The reality experienced by a person who suffers delusions for psycological or medical reasons is just as valid as any other.
  
• Objectivity loses its meaning. It is purely coincidental if different people agree on reality or not.
  
• There is no causal link to prefer one view of reality over another.

 

So it is true that our view of reality can be fooled by optical illusions, and the circumstances descibed by coberst, but to refer to that view as being reality is misleading.

[coberst]

There is indeed some sensory input that stimulates the reality we create. It is a difficult thing to discuss because we do not have a vocabulary suitable for discussing it. Kant speaks of the thing-in-itself as being that reality out there and we speak of the reality that we know. Our problem lies in that we use the same word "reality" for both because up until recently everyone considered what we know is what is out there.

 

Objectivity is shared subjectivity.

 

These are matters that are difficult to discuss because we do not have a vocabulary suitable to reality. The common view, supported by many a priori philosophical views, holds that what we see is what is. Only in the last few decades has serious empirical research made it clear that these objectivists views are in error.

[coberst]

Modest

 

I think that paradigm shifts run from the casual step forward to the terrifying leap into the unknown.

 

I may not be putting sufficient emphases on the big leap of Newtonian physics but the fortunate aspect of this paradigm is that its parameters are so intuitive that they dispel some of the mystery that might cause anxiety. Newtonian parameters are momentum, acceleration, velocity, distance, and time; all very intuitive even to the unsophisticated.

 

But Einstein’s Special Relativity is a different matter, and so is Quantum Mechanics, and so is the paradigm shift offered by SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science), i.e. the embodied mind coupled with the conceptual metaphor.

 

Another big aspect of paradigm shift is the factor of “is there money in it”. When the paradigm shift is in the natural sciences the shift can happen very fast because there is money in it. If the shift is in the human sciences where money is not there to give it a big boost and the academia’s conservative tendencies are there to hold it back the change may take generations. No self respecting tenured professor is going to embrace a paradigm shift that makes his or her class notes obsolete.

[jedaisoul]

Our problem lies in that we use the same word "reality" for both because up until recently everyone considered what we know is what is out there.

I disagree that "we" use the word reality for both. I make a distinction between a view of reality, which is subjective and a construct of the mind, and reality itself. Would you agree that is a common nowadays for people aware of the subject to make such a distinction?

 

The common view, supported by many a priori philosophical views, holds that what we see is what is. Only in the last few decades has serious empirical research made it clear that these objectivists views are in error.

It is indeed common parlance to fail to distinguish between reality and the view of it we create in our minds, and this is reflected in the title of this thread. As you have pointed out, we know that this is in error. I wonder therefore why you phrased the title as you did?

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

 

You confuse me. First you say “I make a distinction between a view of reality, which is subjective and a construct of the mind, and reality itself”, which I judge to be an objectivist view and then you seem to contradict that in the last paragraph.

 

Do you agree with my claim that ‘objectivity is shared subjectivity’, i.e. that there is no reality that we can know beyond that which we create in our brain.

 

I do not claim to be either an objectivist nor a subjectivist I am an experimentalist.

 

Basic realism entails at least the following characteristics:

• A commitment to the existence of a real world external to human existence

• A link of some kind between human conceptual systems and aspects of reality

• A conception of truth that has some grounding in external reality

• The possibility of stable knowledge of the external world

• The rejection of the idea that any conceptual system is as good as any other

 

Objectivism and experimentalism are two different versions of basic realism.

 

The objectivist paradigm features metaphysics and epistemology that is independent of human cognition, language, and knowledge. Objectivism holds that reality can be modeled as entities, their properties, and interrelationships. Page 159 women fire Lakoff

 

Basic realism only assumes that there is a mind independent reality out there somewhere. The reality that Kant calls the ‘thing-in-itself’ is assumed to exist. This is a fundamental axiom of basic realism philosophy.

 

“Objectivist metaphysics is much more specific. It additionally assumes that reality is correctly and completely structured in a way that can be modeled…in terms of entities, properties, and relations…this structure exists, independent of any human understanding.”

 

Objectivists further assume that thought is merely the manipulation of abstract symbols. The assumption is that the brain functions much like the computer. The computer manipulates symbols in a specific manner and the meaning of the symbols is determined by the user.

 

Objectivists assume that words and mental representations, i.e. symbols, obtain their meaning from a correspondence with entities and categories in the world.

 

Objectivism holds the view that there are entities in the world that naturally fall into categories. It is also held that there exist logical relationships between categories that are purely objective, i.e. that have no subjective component, i.e. that are completely independent of any minds, human or otherwise (with the exception of God of course).

 

Experimentalism is a name given by Lakoff and Johnson to SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) in their book “Philosophy in the Flesh”. Contrary to objectivist view that the body has nothing important to do with human thought or categorization SGCS characterizes meaning in terms of embodiment.

[jedaisoul]

Jedaisoul

 

You confuse me. First you say “I make a distinction between a view of reality, which is subjective and a construct of the mind, and reality itself”, which I judge to be an objectivist view and then you seem to contradict that in the last paragraph.

I am not an objectivist. I merely believe that the universe exists outside our perception of it. That view is not solely held by objectivists.

 

Do you agree with my claim that ‘objectivity is shared subjectivity’, i.e. that there is no reality that we can know beyond that which we create in our brain.

I agree that 'objectivity is shared subjectivity', but I interpret that in a very different way from you. I distinguish between objectivity and reality:

• Subjectivity is one persons conceptualisation of reality.
  
• Objectivity is a shared conceptualisation of reality. It is not reality.
  
• Reality that that which exists whether we perceive it or not.

The important distinction is that objective and subjective are both conceptualisations of reality that exist in our minds. Reality exists outside our minds. It is not dependent on what we perceive or conceptualise it to be.

 

Does that clear up the misunderstanding?

[coberst]

Jed...

 

Thanks We just do not have a vocabulary that makes such discussions easy.

[jedaisoul]

Thanks We just do not have a vocabulary that makes such discussions easy.

You are welcome. The following may help you to visualise the difference between an objective conceptualisation and reality:

• Objectivity is shared subjectivity.
  
• If you speak to a group of believers, their objective view is that God exists.
  
• If you speak to a group of non-believers their objective view is that God does not exist.

Does God exist? You have two choices:

• God only exists if we believe Him to.
  
• God's existence is independent of whether we believe in Him.

Instead of "God", substitute "the universe" in the above...

[HydrogenBond]

The science mind is more based on the left cerebral hemisphere. This causes us to focus better on differences instead of homogeneity. Nature, such as cells, the human body, ecosystems are 3-D integrated, but we investigate them with a differential approach that tends to focus on the unique differences. This, by default limits reality perception to something it is not fully 3-D reality. The fudge factors of chaos and statistics reflects the unknowns because 3-D reality can only be approximated . It is easier to say there is chaos, than we are only in the approximation stage.

 

The analogy is, science is looking at the trees within the 3-D reality of the forest. It gets so bogged down looking at all the trees, it can't fully see the 3-D or integrated reality of the forest. We try to approximate this starting from many points in the forest, with each sector trying to integrate, but with a smaller number of trees. This may not reflect the reality of the forest but may reflect the reality of each differentiated sector of the forest.

 

The sudden appearance of that small group of oak seedlings may look random in that sector. In the reality of the 3-D forest it may have a logical explanation. Specialization, another by-product of the left hemisphere can create interface problems, due to gaps in forest knowledge. This can make extended connections harder to see. The acorn from one sector, might be become a mystery rock in another. One sector sees the acorn having fallen down the hill in the rain. While other sector insists that can not be the right explanation, since everyone knows rocks don't make trees. To avoid this confusion we put up fences, assume chaos works in the night, hopping the fences. The result is sort of a piece-meal 3-D approximation we call reality. I know one is not suppose to let this out of the bag.

 

I always rag on statistics and chaos because if you look at it logically, it disproves the ability to reason beyond so many steps. Reason works under the assumption of tangible things with probability equal to 1. In other words, we assume gravity is real and not based on fuzzy dice. If we assume fuzzy dice and chaos, there is no straight line between point. There is always an angle of uncertainty with a compounding angle error, where reason should eventually falls off any presumption of a sharp track. Maybe after ten pages of logic, chaos does not allow it to be one track, since it is in the air.

 

Here is analogy. If we have sharp points, the line is straight. If we have fuzzy points the angle between point don't have to be linear with respect to center, they only have to tough the fuzzy, anywhere in the fuzzy. If one is trying to build a staircase, the risers and stair treads don't have to be square, since this is not possible. They can shift at angles or even compound the error propagation, since this is valid construction technique based on the building codes that are being provided. The person, who would be considered an apprentice in a rational world, can become a master carpenter in the land of chaos. On the good side this has opened science to anyone with only hammer. The t-square is not a valid tool in the land of chaos, since it doesn't help increase the perception of more chaos. Chaos is a state of mind due to lax building standards trying to replace reason. In the land of chaos, wobbly houses has become the standard so chaos can look real.

[coberst]

HydrogenBond

 

I have never read any views similiar to those you express. Have these come from one book or many different books or are they the understanding that you have developed?