Talk:Perception/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Changes

Going to revert the last changes and begin working to integrate their material into the WP article. I have a concern that this appears to be a quotation from a printed/published source and, lacking context for this update, would rather be safe than sorry. PilotPrecise 01:38, 10 March 2004 (UTC)

Discuss this page

Quote from last para of section "Perception and reality ": "The brain, with which you perceive the world, is made up of neurons “buzzing” at 50 cycles a second, while the world as it exists in reality, is made up of electro-magnetic radiation oscillating at 500 trillion cycles a second." With the greatest respect to all concerned, this seems to me to mean absolutely nothing from a scientific perspective. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be more types of perception. Along with Color, Depth, Form, and Speech perceptions, there could also be time, and speed perceptions. Time is perceived; when doing activity it seems as though time is progressing faster or slower (a watched pot never boils). Speed is perceived, the perception of traveling slower after exiting a freeway and a reduction of measured speed. Maybe, I am not understanding the meaning of types of perception.

-- Distinction that has to be made --

This page needs to be rewritten to reflect two competing theories (PP and PA - I have added this to the introductory paragraph). Without making this clear in the text, misconceptions (already reflected here) will completely cloud the picture.

Fell free to correct my grammar and, if you wish, wisit my website Imagination is Greater than Knowledge for better understanding of active perception theory.

Damir Ibrisimovic 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

I guess that my intervention in intro is now redundant. Please, fell free to remove it or adjust it to the current content of the article. Thank you. Damir Ibrisimovic 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DEAR ALL THERE IS SOME THING I WANT TO DISCUSS.DOES THINKING HABBITS EXIST [ CERTAIN SPECIFIC IDEAS START TO COME IN MIND WHEN A PERSON IS EXPOSED TO A DEFINITE SITUATIONS INTERMITTENTLY, EVERYTIME THE SAME KIND OF IDEAS START POURING IN], OR IT IS JUST THE PREDECIDED PRIORITIES(WHAT WE CALL HUMAN VALUES) WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.102.214 (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was sad to see that this article does not give a summary of the scientific understanding of perception. There is a lot of philosophizing going on throughout the article, but I was hoping to find a general overview of things like brain areas involved in the processing of sensory input. I feel like it would be appropriate to have a distinct article for philosophizing about perception, and another article for giving a general summary of the account of perception that is given by neuroscience. 134.10.125.172 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

modeling

"Many cognitive psychologists hold that, as we move about in the world, we create a model of how the world works" Which psychologists? jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 15:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Jean Piaget, Eleanor Gibson, Ulric Neisser, Donald Norman to name a few old timers. Be more interesting to name any current cognitive psycholigists who deny the same proposition.Edison 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Object-centered vs. Viewer-centered

Shouldn't this page at least mention these things? It also seems there are no separate pages for them, even though that seems appropriate, too. As far as I know, this is still an ongoing discussion within the field of Perception as understood by Psychology? Gijs Kruitbosch 11:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Perception and reality

This section is not NPOV. It is certainly not agreed upon that we do not directly experience objective reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.184.30.17 (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I second this. "...if the percept has no grounding in a person's experience, the person may literally not perceive it." I've only seen this position seriously purported by extremely :flaky sources, like What The Bleep do We Know. It is quite the claim to be unsourced. Could be wrong though, any thoughts?

98.217.186.65 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Areas of Interest

I’m glad to see some changes away from classical interpretations. These changes are based upon solid scientific findings that have significant impact not only in psychology or neurology. (Please do not use “neuroscience” - this is tautology.)

Recent (and not so recent) findings have also significant impact on validity of many claims made in philosophy, sociology and even physics. The example that comes to my mind is entry on consciousness by your philosophically oriented colleagues in Wikipedia. There is not even a note about Benjamin Libet’s findings!

I would suggest that it is time to start to contemplate possible implications and get involved in these areas of interest, for the science should confront unfounded believes.

Cordially,

Damir Ibrisimovic 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A Suggestion for Consciousness Related To-do Item

Dethrone the brain as a seat of consciousness in phenomenological sense. (Imagined vs. actually seen images issue.)

Adopt strictly psychological/neurological findings about consciousness in non-phenomenological sense.

This would imply two different types of consciousness that are often awkwardly merged into one.

I would also like to see culture related to-do item.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following three paragraphs to be added to the page. Feel free to correct my grammar and style. I would also suggest expanding with findings from experimental psychology and neurology. Please, let me know what you think.

What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, one’s culture and the interpretation of the perceived. If the percept does not have support in any of these perceptual bases it is unlikely to rise above perceptual threshold.

Perception gives rise to two types of consciousness; phenomenal and psychological. The difference everybody can demonstrate to himself/herself by simple opening and closing his/her eyes. Phenomenal consciousness is full of rich sensations that are hardly present when eyes are closed.

Psychological consciousness is well researched and measured. It occurs half a second after a stimulus starts. If a weak stimulus lasts less, it is unlikely to be perceived. The capacity of psychological consciousness is also well measured. Depending on methods used the capacity ranges between seven and forty symbols at the time.

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:Consciousness page I have suggested disambiguation and a new article that will describe consciousness from psychological and neurological aspects. Consciousness is well researched phenomenon in psychology and neurology and should be presented without too much philosophising. The suggested entry could be called Consciousness in Psychology ad should be directed to from the present Consciousness page.

This will make both articles more professional and less controversial.

Also. I’m still waiting for a feedback on the suggested three paragraphs above. Careful read of the article indicates some redundancies and ambiguities within text if only these three paragraphs are added without changes to the rest of text.

If I do not have a negative feedback, I will make the change in a few days.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have included these three paragraphs. However, I do not want to change the text of others. I will only make few observations.

I would be reluctant to talk about altered perception, since there are good reasons to believe that perception cannot occur without fusing stimuli into a percept. We cannot speak about altered perception; only about altered stimuli.

Terms, percept, stimulus and object are loosely treated as synonyms. One could argue that four cut circles offer square as percept, for example. (Absence of stimuli that gives rise to percept.) The term object implies a source of stimuli and should be treated as such and the other two are explained below.

Arguably, non-conscious perception alters stimuli less than conscious, especially when verbally expressed. There is some work in this area that can be presented. If we accept this, the symbol would then be an abstract representation of a range of percepts. (Should we say schemas?) This would also mean that we need to talk about percepts at non-conscious level of perception and symbols at conscious level. This is not to say that percepts are less biased. In fact, we may have the opposite; the symbols may be less biased due to the veto mechanism (ethics?) of our consciousness.

It is important to stress in the rest of the text the interplay between experiences, culture and interpretation. The language, especially, alters the stimuli. There are plenty of examples and findings how these three perceptual bases alter stimuli.

What I termed psychological consciousness has several other terms with moderately different meanings; like access consciousness, for example. This could be pointed out.

The proposed psychological consciousness page should also discuss non-consciousness.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reworking

Yikes, just came across this article. It certainly needs some reliable sources. I think there is material out there to back up what is stated under perception and reality, but should it be Perception of Reality? Think there may be some added sections. Like Perception (Philosophy), etc. Now when we look at it perception on a philosophical view is Ontology and there is also different theories on Perception on a more mystical view, such as Vedanta, etc. So maybe a link section linking to these other articles. savasas (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying Phenomenal Consciousness

I’m glad that a philosophically oriented anonymous is trying to reconcile philosophers’ views on perception with scientific findings. (As far I know, this is the first, courageous attempt.) I am concerned though that we are losing clarity in the article. I invite therefore this person to propose changes first on this, discussion page.

I would also like to see some clarity about consciousness and perception. When we consider the find that there is no difference in the brain between imagined and actually seen - the role of our brain is rather interpretative. In a way, our brain is trying to make sense of our sensations. Philosophers’ phenomenal consciousness would then indicate a combination of both. Furthermore, very few of these interpretations filter down into well researched and measured psychological consciousness. At the moment we can only guess the volume of non-conscious interpretations. To complicate the matter further, non-conscious interpretations seem to be very vague and gaining specifics only when we became conscious of them. For example, when we unexpectedly meet a friend. In reverse, our friend could remain an unspecific person telling us later how she tried to get our attention. Phenomenal consciousness is therefore either a combination of sensations and psychological consciousness or a combination of sensations, psychological consciousness and non-consciousness. Which of these two would be difficult to figure out until we have a firmer grip on non-consciousness.

We also have to keep in mind that our consciousness always lags behind half a second in average. This time is partly needed to add specifics to vague interpretations. As for how vague interpretations gain specifics, see here.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

'it is a task far more complex than was imagined in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was predicted that building perceiving machines would take about a decade, a goal which is still very far from fruition.' this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to have in the introduction... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.123.167 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Percept Article

Dear all,

I have rewritten Percept article. Please read it and leave your comments at the related discussion page. I will now look at how we may get more clarity here also.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Redesign

So this article is really lacking in context and clarity. I am going to work on improving it so that it meets Wikipedia's standard. Right now it looks like a freshman philosophy paper. Empireheart (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Empireheart,

I can see that you partly managed to turn this scientifically based article into philosophically based article. I do understand that findings in psychology and neuroscience could be confusing to people with philosophical beckground. But this should be an important reason to one to familiriarise himself with these findings. This should not be a reason to impose what one thinks scienfitic findings tell us about perception. And the later, unfortunately, seems to be the choice of some people with philosophical background.

Unlike you, I will not do the chages here directly. I will specify my changes on the discussion page first to be commented upon first. And I hope that you will accept science as starting point; not what some philosopher might have been musing about in history.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Different perceptions

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/2.html

Maybe you are willing and able to insert this real story of different perceptions into the article's text.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.0 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perception Related Info

I have modified my talk page. If you are interested in a coherent view about our cognitive and recognitive abilities, I suggest you to visit it.

Kind regards,

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the article

Dear all,

My book is now out and promotional copies will soon go to independent reviewers to enable them to publish their reviews in May/June period. This gave me some time to revisit this article, as promised. Unfortunately, I found that our philosophically oriented colleagues managed to cloud even that little clarity we had. Furthermore, my offer to disambiguate consciousness with a proposed text based upon scientific findings was stonewalled on the grounds of technicality and the inconvenient discussion was deleted later. Their understanding of an article seems to be rather in terms of who said what (hearsay or gossip); regardless of how much sense a reader could derive from all those contradictory views of various philosophers.

Fortunately, there are few philosophers who care about the science behind what they propose. And this includes consciousness from psychological perspective and phenomenal consciousness. And since our philosophically oriented colleagues do not want to disambiguate these two quite different phenomena, I did not have other choice but to disambiguate them here.

Note also that consciousness (in both meanings) and perception are deeply personal. Willy-nilly we must give a meaning to stimuli to perceive it at all; we must think or say “this is hot”, for example, to discriminate between hot and cold. When talking about perception, we cannot therefore use impersonal language you are used to when speaking about others or other things. We must give to the reader clarity with plenty of examples and familiarity in this case. After all, our readers are humans like us or like subjects of our experiments. My drafted proposal for lead is supported, in every word, by scientific finds (and few philosophical works); as are all the articles and the book I wrote. I will add the references as we go, since there are so many that it is hard to choose the most appropriate ones.

Some references to philosophers’ views will have to go or be moved under history or another heading, for clarity sake. Other references, that do not cloud the issue I’ll try to keep, but no promises here - open for discussion. The current graphics of Robert Fludd’s depiction of perception is an excellent candidate for removal.

The heading “Types” is rather artificial since it belongs to introductory remarks of the lead and I summed them up that way. Although this summation belongs rather to history, there are too many readers who learned about the theory of passive perception only. I felt therefore a need to put both theories in the intro to the lead; a surgical cut from what they learned in school.

The heading “Perception and reality” needs to be rewritten. I am thinking about how, but other proposals would be welcome under discussion line.

The heading “Theories of perception” is rather a list of functional aspects of PA theory. We need to either expand the list or move it to notes. The change of the heading text would also be appropriate.

The following are only major points that support the lead and are open for discussion:

Notes: Philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers proposed last year an extended mind theory for phenomenal consciousness that is entirely in line with this presentation of perception. The latest expression of their views could be found here: “What a maze-solving oil drop tells us of intelligence”. Peter Russel proposes something similar. His differences with the other two, however, might be stemming from the demonstrated lack of insights about findings in scientific disciplines other than physics. For the latest expression of his views see this video presentation: “Primacy of Consciousness”.

The most cited finds in genetics that support this presentation of perception are 1) finding that differences in epigenome between twins grow as they accumulate different experiences and 2) two independent studies that practically replicated Europe’s map by looking into a single letter; almost 30% of the second generation of immigrants had their letter changed when compared with their parents’.

Anthropological finds presented in culture and anthropology related articles would suffice for now.

Please add your comments below the draft and, since my English is my second language, please feel free to do minor corrections within the draft.

I am open to all comments and criticisms that have the science backing them. Please resist urges to discuss who said what about perception or consciousness - unless it is in line with facts as we know them now. If not, I will consider such comments irrelevant in the anticipated agreement.

I am also open to all questions. In fact, your questions could help me to identify the most relevant references.

I hope that we will reached an agreement and finalise the lead within two months from now. However, if there is a lack of substantial comments or criticism and I finalise the draft - I will simply rewrite the article.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear all,

We had a minor hiccup and I assume that we can resume our consultations. However, Ancheta’s dilemma and the hiccup made me think how to prevent vandalism and incompetence and yet deliver on and enhance Wikipedia’s democracy together with an increase in the quality of the articles. I will therefore propose an experiment with the Perception page to see how well it will be received.

I would suggest an associated page that will contain examples and articulated comments of readers:

The front tab of both pages should be locked.
Tabs of the percept article and examples article should be accessible to trusted contributors and technical staff/members.
Readers should able to see and access only the article tab of the article and examples + discussion tabs.
Readers should be encouraged to leave their examples and comments with only “add a section” as an option. Occasionally, we could move meaningful content from discussion tab to the examples article.

I hope that with such strategy we could achieve the following:

Prevent the most of vandalism.
Identify potentially valuable contributors and invite them to join.
Increase the chances of “the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words” to comprehend.

Please, let me know what you think about such strategy and could we implement it.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear all,

I have nearly finished with drafting. The most of notes, references and reading suggestions we could “steal” from other articles. But the most important ingredient is still missing, perspectives of others here. Every comment, suggestion or question can help. Even if you do not understand something is a strong indicator that I did not express well this something. And hopefully I will find a way to enhance the expression in question...

Please, do not hesitate with your comments and help me with the cut & paste job.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Thanks Ancheta.

Dear Ancheta,

Judging by the echo, we are alone here...

Since other perspectives are not on the horizon, I’ll need a couple of days doing other things and come back with fresh eyes. I will then finalise the draft and decide on the probable next step.

This break is rather convenient for me now. I have been working with a network of farmers re my proposal: Pioneering a new agricultural revolution. Combined with few recent finds the idea has a potential to transform the Australian continent. It appears that afforestation of coastal areas would drive winds and clouds into the continental interior. And although my idea is not presented in the formal submission to the government, my understanding was that it will be used as a powerful additional argument.

And now, I was contacted by a government representative for a “chat” in his office. And this “chat” could last two days...

Meanwhile, fell free to archive the page and fix within the draft what you think that needs fixing. If you wish to add something please do. You have demonstrated to me a complete understanding and I believe that your intervention will be entirely in line with my thoughts on the topic. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please place here references and other cut & paste stuff:

(Intro to the lead)

Historically, perception was considered in terms established by René Descartes: perception → thoughts that lead to a decision (brain) → action. (Compare with principle our computers are built on: input → processing → output.)

This picture has been entirely eroded in the second half of the last century that was crowned by seminal works of Richard L. Gregory, Benjamin Libet and numerous other cognitive psychologists. Aided by mostly non-intrusive equipment they started to map subjective experiences with records of their physical manifestations. The accumulated finds lead to an inevitable conclusion that we are much more active or subjective in what and how we see than we suspected. Consequently, the previous theory of perception received passive as an attribute (PP) and the new, now widely accepted, theory received active as an attribute.

The Active Perception (PA) changes Descartes’ picture into dynamic interplay between environment ↔ our perception of it (default percepts) ↔ our description of it (brain). (Compare with non-monotonic logic.)

The PA theory was originally conceived by philosopher David Hume in his considerations of which kind of experiences a blind person, suddenly made to see, would have. And Richard L. Gregory was lucky enough to follow up on the real life example of an older blind person suddenly made to see by an operation. These two are really a match made in heaven...

In short, PA theory states that we establish a set of more or less vague expectations for what we are about to experience in one of the next moments of our lives. A kind of virtual reality simulation just before the real stuff...

And as the moment for our expectations to be fulfilled nears more and more details are added to such “hypothesis”. And when this expected moment actually hits us - all we need to do is to quickly pick up confirmations from our environment. A very few will not receive their confirmations, but correcting this is still much faster than building the whole of the picture from the scratch... And, whenever we can, we run such “simulations” well in advance - a precursor to imagination, art etc. etc. However, if we do not have a detailed expectation to see a friend in a busy shopping mall, for example, we may miss her waiving and yelling our name - entirely. Only later we may learn of our perceptual failure...

The PA theory also received unexpected support from the theory about Complex Adaptive Systems (an artificial intelligence discipline). The processes in both bear remarkable similarity and many are now peeking through a keyhole on the door between the disciplines. This might well be the time to open this door...

Notes: This article is presented mostly in terms of the Active Perception Theory.

Other contemporary theories are rather functional aspects of the Active Perception Theory.

Figures presented in the article are averages. The ranges of figures are used only when additional clarity is required.

Word “see” is used as a metaphor for perception.

.....

(Lead text)

Perception, as recognition, occurs when our sensations match expected sensations (default percepts) based upon our, also expected, description. This process is nonconscious and rather fast; two milliseconds in average. This speed can be experienced when we look at an ambiguous image with an assumed (default) percept; it seems that we recognised an image as soon we laid our eyes at it.

However, if our expectations are not met, the unexpected attracts our attention and we became conscious of it within half a second. At the same time our nonconscious cognition is trying to build up and verify a new expected description out of cognitive elements or percepts. This delay can be experienced when we try to see un-assumed images in a set of stimuli that form an ambiguous image. The delay usually lasts at least half a second. The length of the delay strongly depends on how familiar we are with all ambiguities the set of stimuli can have. If somebody just surprised us, for example, with information about another possible interpretation, we may need to invest much more effort to actually see the alternative - and this takes time...

In the example left we have two sets of stimuli. And each of the sets could have a two different meanings or default percepts. Which will be default and which will be non-default, to any of us, depends strongly on our personalities. The same could be said to what kind of stimuli (or nonstimuli) we give a preference; dark or bright, for example. And transition of one into another will always have a noticeable delay - a half a second delay, at least...

It is also important to clarify the word “description” as a core concept used to describe how we see. At any point in time, we describe what we expect to see on the basis of past experiences. At any point of time, for example, we build a description in advance for what we are about to see as we turn around “that corner”. And when we do turn around that corner, specific expectations for bakery, for example, will be quickly confirmed. However, if we do not have previous experiences of environment expected around “that corner”, we have to build up the picture we see from its elements turning vague expectations into more specific. And if we moved into a suburb of another city for example, weeks, months and even years could pass until we build sufficiently detailed mental maps for what is around “that corner”...

Cognitive perception is extensively researched by cognitive psychologists. At the beginning their research was centred on ambiguous sensations and crowned by seminal works of Richard L. Gregory. This research was, however, hugely augmented by new technologies and skills that enabled mapping subjective experiences with recorded activities within our brain. Understanding perception is a key to understanding a well measured phenomenon - phenomenon psychologists call consciousness. From psychological perspective, consciousness is like a spotlight that casts light at very few “items” in the dark see of nonconsciousness; seven symbols in average. Another set of measurements performed by Benjamin Libet gave us a moment when we decide to act or veto an action. And this was a big surprise. It turned out that brain activity for an action starts well before we detect consciously an urge to act - half a second earlier. Here however, we are talking about habitual acts or perceptions based upon our previous experiences. As on unknown territory, acts that are not in our habitual repertoire are performed hesitantly with half a second delayed disruptions; very much like when we learn a new dance.

It should be noted, though, that philosophers use term consciousness for another phenomenon that is here referred to as phenomenal consciousness. Psychological consciousness can be derived from phenomenal consciousness. And the phenomenal consciousness must be in this case assumed as given - primary. And this primacy of phenomenal consciousness prevents us from deriving conclusions about it from finds in cognitive psychology about our perception and consciousness.

How we see, think and act can be externalised and illustrated with crime scene investigations - a popular topic for countless TV series and movies.

The first visit to a crime scene is emotional but full of investigative details, like numbered tags for pictures of evidence taken. Internally, this is how we form our emotionally charged fresh memories. Then investigators struggle to make some sense out of the evidence. The same we do when we try to build a bigger picture using perceptual elements or percepts. Then investigators try to verify their picture with possible suspects or witnesses. And the same we do by searching our previous experiences...

As time goes by, the investigators return to the crime scene again and again. We do the same mostly non-consciously and even in our dreams... And as investigation nears to its resolution with the case resolved or dropped - we do the same - the emotional charge of our fresh memory gradually turns into a habitual, but detailed, percept, thought or action. Alternatively, the emotional charge may evaporate before it turns into a habitual, but detailed, percept and we drop the case, i.e. forget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibrisim (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Three Corners of Perception

The developmental psychology established the three corners of perception: genome, culture and personal experiences. Through genome we inherit parts of vague expectations that are later complemented as we grow into our culture. At the same time we start to refine these, inherited but vague, expectations through our own, personal experiences.

This view is now receiving increased support from genetics and anthropology. Several studies showed differences in genome and epigenome on the basis of accumulated experiences of our parents and our own accumulated experiences as we live within our culture. Anthropological studies in perceptual differences between cultures, now facilitated by brain scanning equipment, have also provided strong support.

The First Corner

In the last two decades our attention has been drown towards expressions of our genome; i.e. epigenome. It has been shown that expressions of the same genetic sequence change as we accumulate our experiences. This has shaken the whole world of geneticists who believed that our genes are set in the stone. And who believed that only “errors in copying” (mutations) were a driving force behind our evolution.

Further research has indicated the impact of our physical and not so physical environment - i.e. culture. Research in hyperlexia has also indicated that more detailed parts of our literacy can impact our genetic makeup.

The current efforts are focused at the role of the combined parents’ epigenome might play during fertilisation. And the tentative expectation is that it does play a big part as parents’ genome halves are combined into the child’s.

A bigger picture is also being now contemplated. The whole evolution is now being looked at through the prism of environment. And our own evolution is not now looked at as evolution in our physical appearances only. And this provides bonds to the second angle in the triangle...

The Second Corner

The assessment that there was a shift away from the transfer of the accumulated knowledge by genes only is not new. It was rather obvious. While calves start running around few hours or days after their birth, our kids need almost a year to start to crawl around...

But this was just an educated guess. We did not have enough evidence to justify and explain fully the transfer of knowledge by cultural means. For a while such transfer of knowledge was only indicated by developmental psychologists. But the last two decades with the aid of brain scanning equipment changed all this and established a strong link with genetics. Virtually, all of our culture started to reveal itself in activities of our brains.

And how our culture impacts on what and how we see, could be seen when we compare brain activities of people belonging to different cultures. South East Asians will see in a picture a jungle (pattern) that happens to have an elephant in it, for example. Caucasians tend to see the same picture the elephant (object) first and the jungle as a background. This might seem as a minor difference, but the cognitive processes in the background are entirely opposite to each other...

The Third Corner

From the moment of our conception, we start to accumulate our own experiences that will remain with us for the rest of our lives. Experiences we had in the womb of our mother are usually very hard to recall. Experiences we had before age four or five are also hard to recall, but less hard than those we had in mother’s womb. And as we grow older, more and more experiences grow harder and harder to recall. But they do stay in the background we call non-consciousness, unless something dramatic happens to us that forces us to re-evaluate them. And even this re-evaluation could be performed non-consciously without us even noticing that consciously.

And every now and then we do perform such re-evaluations; non-consciously, deliberately or in our dreams. And every now and then we end up with our experiences (knowledge) consolidated and more stable to face a new day...

Although we often do not notice this consciously, gradual but dramatic changes in our perceptual base do happen occasionally. This could be seen in two individuals falling in love. The manifestation of this process could be seen in the frequent replacements of “I” (me, individual) with “us” (a greater whole). The first time parents also manifest similar dramatic changes of perspective - suddenly their whole world is centred around their child.

Non-Monotonic Logic and Perception

We do not only see according to the given outlines, we also think and act according to similar outlines. And these outlines are partly formalised in the non-monotonic logic.

Default Reasoning and Abductive Reasoning could easily be related to default percepts, habitual thoughts and acts. Reasoning about Knowledge indicates how we become aware that sensations do not match our defaults while Belief Revision indicates the process of how we perceive non-default percepts or think or act in a non-habitual way.

The only difference seems to be that we are much more emotional and habitual then we usually suspect. And this is often experienced as a kind of uneasiness in the face of non-default percepts or non-habitual thoughts or actions. Further improvements in non-monotonic logic may well be in adding emotional and habitual weights. Emotional weight could be a ranked importance to an agent, while habitual weight could be expressed as the number of successful direct and indirect, but successful, resolutions of default/habitual percepts, thoughts and actions. Unsuccessful resolutions should result in decreases of both, emotional and habitual weights. Successful resolutions should increase a weight of either. With this we could have an iterative process for Belief Revision relations.

Kolmogorov Math and Perception

Russian mathematician Kolmogorov tried and mostly succeeded to mathematically express how to shorten a description without losing any of its meanings. We also are doing something similar under the weights of exceptions to our default percepts. Regardless of how many billions of neurons we hide in our scull, our memory is still limited. And if we fill all of the “free space on the disk” with exceptions, that’s it. We can forget our “PC”.

Despite all of the free time our consciousness might have; our non-consciousness is all the time busy trying to find a solution for accumulated exceptions and contradictions. And it works pretty much according to the rules Kolmogorov established; ensuring that there will be enough “free disk space” for our future fresh memories...

Your comments please:

(Thank you.)

File:Wyoplate2009.jpg WY license plate

Damir Ibrisimovic, I can corroborate the first 2 paragraphs above: when growing up in El Paso, Texas we had the opportunity to see the first license plates with pictures in the Western US, from Wyoming. The picture on the license place featured a cowboy on a bucking bronco and the dramatic silhouette remains in my mind as a vivid first impression (when first introduced, the background was a plain solid beige, I believe, and the silhouette was on the left side of the plate). But now that I live in Wisconsin, I often see the Endangered Species license plate with a wolf's head on it on the left side of the plate. Since my first impression of a license plate with a picture on it was the bucking bronco, as I gaze at the WI license plate, my mind's eye shifts from the bronco to the wolf's head, and the times required to perceive the wolf are as you describe. And yes, the wolf's head and the bucking bronco are of similar dimension and shape on the license plate. Perhaps these two illustrations will help the article -- but as I re-examine this, it is an advantage to show only the first image (to simulate the first impression which somehow remains vivid in memory, for me) and to force people to retrieve the next images (to simulate the re-construction process, which somehow is less vivid than the first impression, for me).

I have often wondered why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before; my own father-in-law once described the process of looking at a yard sign which at first impression morphed from one shape to another shape as he got a better look. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This gives me the opportunity to reconstruct what must be happening as I parse the events which make up my driving experience:

In car, driving.
Car in front of me is close enough for me to see the license plate.
License plate is in its usual spot on the car.
License plate has picture on it (fairly unusual as most plates just have letters and numbers - and yes, I am aware that a Wisconsin car's license plate has a small barn, a small sun, and a small sailboat on it - but that is routine and those small pictures can be ignored, as they are a quarter or a sixth of the area of the protrait of the wolf's head).
I remember the license plate archetype (in your terminology: default percept) which I have learned decades before (bucking bronco) in my mind's eye.
I double-check the picture by zooming in on the wolf position (in your terminology: nonconscious cognition is trying to build up and verify a new expected description out of cognitive elements or percepts) on the plate. -- What some people describe as "it leapt out at me".
Yes, it's the wolf (and yes I am aware that sometimes the picture is a fireman's seal or some university campus seal, or a purple heart medal etc. - but the shapes of those pictures is completely different from the wolf - and yes Wisconsin has an inordinate number of these specialized plates) (in your terminology: our description (brain)).
Attention returns to more urgent events.

Sounds like situated cognition, doesn't it. These events are happening for me at an intuitive rate which is God-given, too fast for me to have described on my own. Because you have described them abstractly as you have, above, I can understand your article because that is what is happening for me, concretely, and not abstractly.

Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are any number of exemplars which you might use to make the rewrite more real for the reader. Some that come to mind are movies, job interviews, cultural stereotypes, political campaigns, workplace interactions, marriages, parent-child interactions, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ancheta,

I have a lot of examples, but I am not so sure how familiar they could be to other people. I am grateful therefore for your and others might have. Together we could work out the best for the article.

All of us here have some strong points in our own areas of expertise. And practically all of us could have a meaningful contribution to the article on perception from a variety of perspectives. This is why I “advertised” the rewriting of this article all over the place.

I also share your sentiment (“why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before”). And I can explain this. There are simply people who think that they understand something after reading few books on the topic. Unfortunately a kind of egalitarianism brought this here to an extreme. And practically any small ego can bully you. And I had enough of that...

I certainly hope to gather others like you here and start doing the job properly. Egalitarianism yes, but not unsubstantiated or on technicalities.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Other comments please:

Damir Ibrisimovic, Since I have a different basis for action than you, it may be useful to state somewhere the tenets of 'Active Perception Theory' and how it somehow explains perception more adequately than competing descriptions. They need not be in the article at all, for the purpose of the article is to benefit those who are simply trying to learn more about the basics of perception, not for practioners or academics. What is clear is that we are not simply automatons blindly reacting to stimulus, which is the basis of Descartes' theory. For if that were so, there would be uniform response by members of the cohort, and instead people react to sensation in a spectrum of ways. This is observable.

Rather, people exercise defeasible logic in their reaction to sensation. "Is this a horse snuffling me? I'm sleepy and it sounds like one, so I will drift back to sleep" on my camping trip in Yosemite. Later we discovered that was a Black Bear who ate up the food we had cached on a tree limb. Since I was asleep, and had no experience with bear snuffles before, I was not alarmed in my sleepy state. Now if I had been awake, the perception might well have been different on my part and defeasible logic would have kicked in. And if the bear had licked me instead of just sniffing me I would have probably awakened. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ancheta,

Your examples are terrific and I would love to see them interwoven within the text of the article. I am just about to exemplify non-monotonic bit with imagery of crime scene investigations; a popular topic for stories and TV series. The way how we write could also be a good example for non-monotonic thinking. (Write, scrap, rewrite, scrap etc. etc.) And if you articulate your experiences within, please do.

As for defeasable logic; I noticed some issues in non-monotonic logic in general. The main one is that end results (of an iterative process) are taken as a basis for articulation of formal relations. Essentially, we always have an iterative process as system components tune themselves with each other until a system settles down into one of few possible stable states. (Klaus Mainzer expressed this well in his book: “Thinking in Complexity”. Unfortunately, he was quite defensive in his writing against potential attacks from the orthodox scientists...)

Of course, we can take these potentially stable states and express them as logical relations, but in real life we are never certain about an outcome. (Note an energy release as a system settles down in a stable state.) And simulated complex systems always manage to find a surprise for us. And that would need to be, in my opinion, an endless addition of new logical relations, mostly as exceptions or belief revisions that invalidate some of other assumed relations. And, to me, this is pretty static way to express systems’ dynamics...

I am trying to resolve these issues by introducing emotional and habitual weights. Accumulation of personal experiences could, in general, explain accumulation of exceptions. I am also thinking of including Kolmogorov math to indicate how a critical weight of exceptions forces us to reorganise our knowledge base. I often exemplify this with Ptolemaic system.

How we see does impact (and is reflected in) practically everything we do. However, although I could go into practically any direction to exemplify and detail, I have to balance all of it against clarity of the article. And here I invented a motto for myself: to artfully tell more with less... And I also need to address how we perceive within our vivid dreams... (Hard to stop yourself, isn't it?)

Also, could you tell me who is administrator for this page? I would like us to have sections related to specific topics and the previous discussions could create confusion. I would suggest that we archive this page and then remove the old sections. Thank you.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic, it's different from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or Citizendium. Wikipedia's tradition is that everyone is an administrator of the article, and everyone is editor of the article. No one is given any currency except that afforded by the immediate circle of editors of the article under the their searchlight. So if that article became 'hot', the buzz would attract more editors in a positive feedback loop, until the cumulative changes fail of their own weight, and that article then sinks back into quiescence. But if an editor were to violate some policy, then the entire weight of the encyclopedia falls on the hapless editor and no one can save him. Thus editing the encyclopedia treads a fine line which depends entirely on the readership of that article.

This will take a bit of communication between the stakeholders, who are actually quite numerous, and no one is on anyone else's side especially if they become alienated due to a misunderstanding.

I presume none of us want the article to fail. There is actually a mechanism called Flagged revisions which work very similarly to your idea. The problem is inertia in the English edition of Wikipedia (or en.wikipedia). Flagged revisions are actually operational in Deutsch Wikipedia. So, if we might communicate your idea to ask if this article might participate in the process Wikipedia:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions#Trial then there would actually be support by the encyclopedia to make forward progress in the article. OK? The upside is that Flagged revisions would have a real-live example of just how the process might work in en.Wikipedia.

This idea may fail. But I presume that will not deter you because there is already a prototype stake in the ground right now. (Just so you know, this is an American idea. Historically when an Indian dog soldier decided to take a stand, he drove a stake in the ground and tied himself to it, for the upcoming contest with other Braves. In this case, of course, it is the article which is being contested.)

If this idea works, a lot of other articles would benefit.

If you are OK with this, I propose communicating on Wikipedia talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions#Trial. You can start or any of the rest of us can talk about your proposal there. Then all we would have to do is use the machinery which is there, to move this article forward. Issues then automatically get examined by others and it all hopefully scales up from this one case. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The machinery is in the Wikimedia Labs server; I logged in; they await. It occurs to me that Damir Ibrisimovic might just want to edit there. But then there is no worldwide exposure, which is the advantage of this page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To all editors:

I propose to archive a subset of the talk page as denoted above. If there are any specific talk threads which any editor wishes to leave un-archived, please respond here. I will wait one week. In the meantime, the talk page will continue to serve as a waystation for improvement of the article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Second Draft

Perception

Historically, perception was considered in terms established by René Descartes: perception → thoughts that lead to a decision (brain) and → action. Closely following Descartes’ thought was a period of automatons, like The Digesting Duck, but more importantly the period of punched cards used to automate textile looms, for example. And from there, there was just a small step left towards our modern computers based upon the principle: input → processing → output.

This picture has been entirely eroded in the second half of the last century that was crowned by seminal works of Richard Gregory, Benjamin Libet, Nancy Kanwisher and numerous other cognitive psychologists and neurologists. Aided by mostly non-intrusive equipment they started to map subjective experiences with records of their physical manifestations. The accumulated finds lead to an inevitable conclusion that we are much more active or subjective in what and how we see than we suspected. Consequently, the previous theory of perception received “passive” as an attribute (PP) and the new, now widely accepted theory received “active” as an attribute.

Finds by cognitive psychologists received complementary support from genetics, sociology, anthropology and other disciplines. But the most surprising support came from the theory about Complex Adaptive Systems (an artificial intelligence discipline); especially neural networks. The processes in both bear remarkable similarity and many are now peeking through a keyhole on the door between them. This might well be the time to open this door...

The Active Perception (PA) changes Descartes’ picture into dynamic interplay between environment ↔ our perception of it (default percepts) ↔ and our description of it (brain), that is well illustrated by non-monotonic logic. The PA theory was originally conceived by philosopher David Hume. In his exchanges with a friend he explored how would a previously blind person interpret visual sensations? Unfortunately, a blind suddenly made see would be a miracle in his time... However, such cases were made possible in the last century. And Richard L. Gregory was lucky enough to follow up on the real life example of an older blind person suddenly made to see. Remarkably, his observations echoed very much Hume’s conclusions...

In short, PA theory states that we establish a set of more or less vague expectations (default percepts) for what we are about to experience in the next few moments of our lives. These sets are based upon a mental map or description of the place (situation) we are about to be in... And then we start kind of virtual reality simulation just before the real stuff... As expectations of one moment are confirmed or corrected, the expectations for the following moments grow more specific until their time comes to be quickly confirmed or corrected. And this is much faster than building up the whole picture from the scratch every moment of our life...

Such simulations could be performed well in advance. And with a small ingredient - freedom, they are a solid launching pad for flights of imagination and art, for example. But, although fast, such simulations are prone to failures. If we do not expect to see a friend, for example, in a busy shopping mall, we may fail to see her waiving and yelling our name. Only later we may learn about our perceptual failure...

Ever got lost awakening in a hotel room? Where am I? This is not my room...

All is fine, quick and easy when we move around a familiar territory or write on a familiar topic. And we do not even think about steps we do when dancing a familiar dance... But what happens when we find ourselves on an unfamiliar ground; when we move into a suburb of another city?

We hesitate. Our eyes try to identify landmarks we were told about. And although hesitant, we are doing here marvellous job. Highly abstract basic perceptual elements quickly establish a sketch we can start to fill in with details. Metaphorically we could list these elementary default percepts as: texture, object, distant, near, vertical, hot, wet, dry, red, round etc. etc. The details that that are filling in the basic sketch also follow a similar path...

How we behave on an unfamiliar territory could be illustrated with crime scene investigation - a popular topic for movies and TV series. As investigators we carefully search for clues - evidence. As investigators we tag them. Unfortunately we do not have cameras in our brain to take pictures of these clues. As a punishment for this we have to return to the crime scene much more often than TV investigators do; even in our dreams. In our dreams we visit the “crime scene” again and again. We do the same mentally while awake, but mostly nonconsciously and without the advantages of inhibited physical actions we have in our dreams. We also talk to other people about the “crime scene”; just as TV investigators do. Until, finally, the whole “crime scene” starts to make sense and we solve the “case” - the unfamiliar territory becomes familiar and we stop hesitating when moving around.

This hesitance, or start-stop type of perceptual actions, has been indirectly researched by Dr. Benjamin Libet. He was intrigued by the finding of Lüder Deecke and Hans Helmut Kornhuber that a volitional action is preceded by .8 seconds of brain activity. Hey, how come? We act immediately after we consciously decide, don’t we?

Intrigued, Dr. Benjamin Libet performed a series of experiments to find precisely when we decide. The surprising conclusion was that we only become conscious of a non-consciously generated urge, to lift a hand for example, .5 seconds after our nonconsciousness “decides” to lift a hand. And at that point we can only veto and abort the initiated action.

One of the most misinterpreted consequences of his find was that we do not have a free will, or rather, that our non-consciousness has a “free will”. Well, things are not as simple as others are putting them... For the beginning we can veto consciously unwanted default percepts of a Jew, for example, and foster turning non-default percepts into new defaults. Mel Gibson, for example, had “relaxed” his veto criteria under the influence of alcohol (Mel Gibson DUI incident) and got himself into a big trouble. But the most of our free will we can see when we are not under influence of alcohol, on unfamiliar territory or faced with ambiguous stimuli...

And the similar timing we do find in ambiguous sets of stimuli, like these on the left. The default, or better to say habitual, percept will assign a meaning to a set of stimuli right away - in .2 seconds. However, the non-default percept will need noticeably longer time to assign its meaning to the stimuli - at least .5 seconds. The longer period indicates that familiarity (habit) with alternative interpretation can shorten the time to actually see the alternative, but that time cannot be shorter than .5 sec. In other words, we need to consciously intend or expect non-default percept at least .5 seconds earlier to enable seeing it consciously .5 seconds later...

It should be noted though that what will be default percepts depends very much on our emotional states, attitudes to other people etc. etc. Perceptual extremes in some types of psychosis illustrate this very well.

Consciousness

To psychologists, consciousness is like a spotlight cast at very few symbols in the dark sea of non-consciousness. It is not only timed by Dr. Benjamin Libet. Its capacity is also well measured with only seven symbols in it at the time...

It should be noted, though, that philosophers use term consciousness for another phenomenon that is here referred to as phenomenal consciousness. While the consciousness psychologists talk about can be derived from phenomenal consciousness, we cannot draw any conclusion about phenomenal consciousness from findings psychologists made...

The Triangle of Perception

The developmental psychology established the three corners of perception: genome with its expressions, culture and personal experiences. Through genome we inherit parts of vague expectations. These parts are later complemented with their cultural complementary parts form a base for our own experiences. And as we grow into our culture we draw the lines to the third angle, filling up the triangle with our own experiences...

This view is now receiving increased support from genetics, sociology and anthropology. Several studies showed differences in genome and epigenome on the basis of accumulated experiences of our parents and our own accumulated experiences as we live within our culture. Anthropological studies in perceptual differences between cultures, now facilitated by brain scanning equipment, have also provided strong support.

The First Corner

In the last two decades our attention has been drown towards expressions of our genome; i.e. epigenome. It has been shown that expressions of the same genetic sequence change as we accumulate our experiences. This has shaken the whole world of geneticists who believed that our genes are set in the stone. And who believed that only “errors in copying” (mutations) were a driving force behind evolution.

Further research has indicated the impact of our physical and not so physical environment - i.e. culture. Research in hyperlexia has also indicated that more detailed parts of our literacy can impact our genetic makeup.

The current efforts are focused at the role of the combined parents’ epigenome might play during fertilisation. And the tentative expectation is that it does play a big part as parents’ genome halves are combined into the child’s. Another branch of research is focused at probable impact mother’s epigenome (experiences) on foetus.

A bigger picture is also being now contemplated. The whole evolution is now being looked at through the prism of environment. And although there are no instantly obvious changes, the positive and negative experiences of an organism within an environment might be behind changes in physical appearances...

The Second Corner

The assessment that there was a shift away from the transfer of the accumulated knowledge by genes only is not new. It was rather obvious. While calves start running around few hours or days after birth, our kids need almost a year to start to crawl around...

But this was just an educated guess. We did not have enough evidence to justify and explain fully the transfer of knowledge by cultural means. For a while such transfer of knowledge was only indicated by developmental psychologists. But the last two decades with the aid of brain scanning and other newly developed equipment changed all this. A strong link with genetics is now established and virtually, all of our culture started to reveal itself in activities of our brains.

Ever thought how South-East Asians seem to be enigmatic? Ever thought that we might be puzzling to them also? And both impressions seem valid on the surface, for each of the two cultures learned to search for emotional clues at different places. While Caucasians manifest emotions mostly around eyes and mouth and look for them there, South-East Asians manifest and look for the same clues in the body language.

South East Asians will also see in a picture a jungle (texture) that happens to have an elephant in it. Caucasians tend to see in the same picture the elephant (object) first and the jungle as a background. This might seem as a minor difference, but the cognitive processes in the background are entirely reversed.

The Third Corner

From the moment of our conception, we start to accumulate our own experiences that will remain with us for the rest of our lives. However, the evidence for this statement is very scattered.

Experiences we had in the womb of our mother are usually extremely hard to recall. Experiences we had before age four or five are also hard to recall, but less hard than those we had in mother’s womb. And as we grow older, more and more experiences grow harder and harder to recall. But they do stay in the background we call non-consciousness, unless something dramatic happens to us that forces us to re-evaluate them. And even this re-evaluation could be performed non-consciously without us even noticing that consciously.

And every now and then we do perform such re-evaluations; non-consciously, deliberately or in our dreams. And every now and then we end up with our experiences (knowledge) consolidated and more stable to face a new day...

Although we often do not notice this consciously, gradual but dramatic changes in our perceptual base do happen occasionally. This could be seen in two individuals falling in love. The manifestation of this process could be seen in the frequent replacements of “I” (me, individual) with “us” (a greater whole). The first time parents also manifest similar dramatic changes of perspective - suddenly their whole world is centred on their child.

Non-Monotonic Logic and Perception

We do not only see according to the given outlines, we also think and act according to similar outlines. And these outlines are partly formalised in the non-monotonic logic.

Default Reasoning and Abductive Reasoning could easily be related to default percepts, habitual thoughts and acts. Reasoning about Knowledge indicates how we become aware that sensations do not match our defaults while Belief Revision indicates the process of how we perceive non-default percepts or think or act in a non-habitual way.

The only difference seems to be that we are much more emotional and habitual then we usually suspect. And this is often experienced as a kind of uneasiness in the face of non-default percepts or non-habitual thoughts or actions. Further improvements in non-monotonic logic may well be in adding emotional and habitual weights. Emotional weight could be a ranked importance to an agent, while habitual weight could be expressed as the number of successful direct and indirect, but successful, resolutions of default/habitual percepts, thoughts and actions. Unsuccessful resolutions should result in decreases of both, emotional and habitual weights. Successful resolutions should increase a weight of either. With this we could have an iterative process for Belief Revision relations.

Kolmogorov Complexity and Perception

Russian mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov tried and mostly succeeded to mathematically express how to shorten a description without losing any of its meanings. We also are doing something similar under the weights of exceptions to our default percepts. Regardless of how many billions of neurons we hide in our scull, our memory is still limited. And if we fill all of the “free space on the disk” with exceptions, that’s it. We can forget our “PC”.

Despite all of the free time our consciousness might have; our non-consciousness is all the time busy trying to find a solution for accumulated exceptions and contradictions. And it works pretty much according to the rules Kolmogorov established; ensuring that there will be enough “free disk space” for our future fresh memories...

Reality?

How certain we are, after all this, that what we see is real?

Our reality is actually the hard problem of consciousness in philosophy. If we look at two apples close enough, we will quickly start to notice more and more differences. And the closer we look more differences we find; until we realise that there is infinity of differences; until we realise that each of the apples is actually unique. And how to compare unique phenomena?

The answer is quite simple, both apples have common properties; properties we cannot find in their atoms - emergent properties; like saltines of salt that looks or feels nothing like properties of sodium or chlorine. And we can count the same emergent properties of otherwise unique phenomena...

But are those emergent properties real?...

Notes:

This article is presented mostly in terms of the Active Perception Theory.
Other contemporary theories are rather functional aspects of the Active Perception Theory.
Figures presented in the article are averages. The ranges of figures are used only when additional clarity is required.
Word “see” is used as a metaphor for perception.
A gene epsilon 4 is probably implicated in performing some functions of Kolmogorov-like math. The gene was previously linked to Alzheimer’s disease, but is now considered as essential for better memory and understanding (Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.108183).
The process of "building up" our expectations could be compared with expectation-maximisation algorithm in statistics.

Sections to be removed: Perception and Reality and Perceptual Threshold (to be addressed in the percept article)

Your Turn

Dear all,

The drafting is over. Please comment. General impressions about the draft will also be welcome.

Now, the hard part of referencing, further readings & external links. All suggestions are welcome.

I would also invite readers, from within the article, positioned at relevant discussion and real life examples, like Ancheta’s, in an introductory section at this talk page. If you have a better alternative, it will be appreciated. (Would be nice to have something like blog.)

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I see some politically incorrect passages. Taboos won't fly unless they are expunged ASAP. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended proposals not in compliance with policies and guidelines - See this AN/I discussion before reopening. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for Rewriting and Style

This article was rewritten with a tacit support from the most of editors. It is likely that some will be considering it in terms of impersonal presentation. However, our perception is a deeply subjective experience and the readers will feel alienated with impersonal presentation. The authors therefore decided to invite his or hers personal, real life, experiences of every reader to fill in the gaps - with style.

The following are only major points that support the article and are open for discussion:

Philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers proposed last year an extended mind theory for phenomenal consciousness that is entirely in line with this presentation of perception. The latest expression of their views could be found here: “What a maze-solving oil drop tells us of intelligence”.
Peter Russel proposes something similar. His differences with the other two, however, might be stemming from the demonstrated lack of insights about findings in scientific disciplines other than physics. For the latest expression of his views see this video presentation: “Primacy of Consciousness”.

The most cited finds in genetics that support this presentation of perception are 1) finding that differences in epigenome between twins grow as they accumulate different experiences and 2) two independent studies that practically replicated Europe’s map by looking into a single letter; almost 30% of the second generation of immigrants had their letter changed when compared with their parents’.

Anthropological and sociological finds presented in culture and anthropology related articles are to be incorporated in the near future.

Art should also have its say here, especially the performing art of stage acting. It is expected, however, that bridges are yet to be built.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Preparing for going live.

Proposed editing rules

WP:Talk page guidelines

Actual rules

The actual 'rules' for talk pages are discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. No other rules are necessary or desirable on this particular page. pablo_hablo. 09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article released on February 23, 2010.

Reply

Dear Pablo,

I have read the guidelines, but these guidelines are getting us into trouble. And they are guidelines not a law to be obeyed.

However, if you can substantiate how these guidelines can get us out of trouble, I will be glad to hear. Otherwise, the discussion about articles on living persons will run into circles - a kind of never ending story.

I thank you anyway for your politeness and respect. I certainly hope that there are more editors like you. And I am always searching for agreements - not confrontations.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouble, eh?
I don't see how the BLP discussion is relevant to the talk page of an article on perception.
I don't understand your proprietorial attitude to the talk page of an article which you have edited twice.
Could you explain those things please? pablo_hablo. 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pablo,

Trust me. I had here almost as much trouble you might be experiencing elsewhere. If you read the draft you might discover how many "turfs" I have "trespassed". People simply come here and delete your work. The same can be seen in BLP discussions - maybe more sharply.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If by 'your work' you mean your article edits, you have no deleted edits, so as far as I can see all eight of them are to articles which still exist. Other editors may have edited those pages since, but " ... if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it ..."
If by 'your work' you mean that people have repeatedly removed your "rules" from this talk page, well that's tough. You cannot unilaterally impose conditions on other editors, and I suggest you remove that section yourself. pablo_hablo. 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pablo,

My approach is to have an agreement first at the discussion page - before changing anything. This is my rule for myself. And this is why many of my suggestions on discussion pages were simply stonewalled or not responded at all, like on talk:information, for example.

However, I grew tired of people who simply jump in and tell you what you “must do” or “must not do” - without any solid reasoning behind their words. People just dropped in here recently and started to delete. How would you feel if somebody breaks into your home and starts to push you around - “this you must do” and this is “forbidden”. And all this supported with what they think you should do or not do.

I appreciate your effort, but I am puzzled by the research you are doing to “prove” that I am wrong. An assumption that one is guilty does not belong to Wikipedia guidelines that state: assume a good intention.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dibrisim, It is a very good principle to strive for agreement between multiple editors before editing. However noone are obligated to respond to talk page proposals, and what you are seeing as "stonewalling" may simply be becayse noone has any objections or noone is currently watching the page where you edited or noone has had the time to respond. In these cases there is a good wikipedia policay called Be bold! - this policy suggest that the right thing to do is to insert changes into the article and then if someone disagrees discuss how best to proceed form there by forming a consensus agreement based on strnegth of arguments. You say that it is annoying to be told what you must and mustn't do - but that is exactly what you do yourself by inventing new rules for how the talk page should work. Consider that other editors may also find this annoying, when done by you. It seems that you have done good progress on this article working togtehr with Ancheta Wis - this is good and it seems you have a good working environment here at the talk page. As long as you are the only ones involved in writing the article you two form consensus - but when other editors arrive their arguments and opinions on how to write the article must be taken into account and any rules by mutual agreement between you and Ancheta do not necessarily apply any more.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No-one is breaking into your home. No-one is editing your page. It's not your page. I am doing zero research to prove that you are wrong; you clearly are. It's not an assumption, it's a fact. The assumption of good faith is the reason why people are taking the time to explain this to you, repeatedly, at several venues. pablo_hablo. 11:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pablo,

When I tried to save the changes as reply to you (half an hour ago), it simply went “puff”. Our friend Fram have meanwhile simply deleted our discussion here. Would you not consider this as annoying intrusion into your home?

However, I must welcome Maunus, although we disagree on the relevance of this discussion for BLP discussion. It is nice to see attempts to be constructive.

I will therefore try to answer to you both. If there is a delay, please excuse me for I am likely to face another attempt to delete this discussion.

The good faith always assumes that one is acting for the benefit of all. And your reactions here and BLP discussion do not demonstrate this. You seem to be inclined to consider my suggestion in an opposite way, i.e. as if I am trying to impose something. And all of your responses seem to be aimed to discredit all I am proposing and trying to implement. No good faith here. No serious discussion from likes of Fram either.

Maunus simply lists possible negatives; nothing really constructive. And what I am conclude from this? A fight for status quo?

I’m sorry, but I have to disappoint you. The status quo is not what I have in mind. It’s like stale water breeding mosquitoes.

I must therefore restate my intentions. And this includes agreements above all. And this includes agreements with you also - but not under the pressure of “authorities” like Fram. I will therefore appreciate your suggestions for how to resolve issues BLP raised.

I will also plead – please consider my suggestions in this light.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not deleted or otherwise removed this discussion, please get your facts straight. You can see what I removed here. This was over an hour ago and reverted by three minutes later. As for your other comments: it is not because the current situation is in some ways problematic, that your solution is better. Trying to chase away the mosquitoes by putting crocodiles in the water is not the best option, to borrow your metaphor. You have only made five mainspace edits in nearly five years time, none of them to a BLP. You have no experience with the problems you describe or try to solve. You have not trued whether the normal editing processes would work on this page. Yet you abandon our talk page editing policy, our anonymous editing policies, and our methods of article building, to impose your own new method, making yourself the keeper of this talk page and the article. Why? Fram (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I will show you, This is exact replica from my Word document: Dear Pablo,

My approach is to have an agreement first at the discussion page - before changing anything. This is my rule for myself. And this is why many of my suggestions on discussion pages were simply stonewalled or not responded at all, like on talk:information, for example.

However, I grew tired of people who simply jump in and tell you what you “must do” or “must not do” - without any solid reasoning behind their words. People just dropped in here recently and started to delete. How would you feel if somebody breaks into your home and starts to push you around - “this you must do” and this is “forbidden”. And all this supported with what they think you should do or not do.

I appreciate your effort, but I am puzzled by the research you are doing to “prove” that I am not right. An assumption that one is guilty does not belong to Wikipedia guidelines that state: assume a good intention.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - please answer my questions above - relevance of BLP to perception, and why you are so proprietorial about the talk page of an article you've edited twice. I'll add a third; what is it about your experience of article editing that qualifies you to dictate to others in this manner? pablo_hablo. 13:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted this discussion and the log can confirm that. I have reversed your deletions but there is the record for that. LOL Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Show me and everyone else where I did it, and I'll apologize, since it was not my intention. Otherwise, please retract your statement. Fram (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that when you tried to post here, the system gave you an edit conflict? That only means that between the time that you opened the edit window and the moment you tried to save your change, someone else (in this case me supposedly) made a change to the same page. There's nothing anyone can do about that. I have never removed your discussion from this page or elsewhere, and have no means of doing anything about or with a Word document you have. Fram (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You posted that with this edit. None of Fram's edits removed it as far as I can see, and it is still on the page here. pablo_hablo. 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Per User:Rklawton: "'Signing here' (on this talk page) to receive recognition for useful edits runs contrary to the purpose of our talk pages and will be reverted on sight" - Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Authors

Every editor who successfully initiated a change to the article, has the right to sign here and describe the agreed change or changes. This is the only reward we can currently provide to serious editors. We also offer to the editors listed here a final say in the discussions and rights to implement the changes.

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Original author of the article.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC) contributor

Question: Who is this we? a_man_alone (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Preparing for going live.

Wikipedia maintains a readily available record of every edit made to every article and talk page. "Signing here" (on this talk page) to receive recognition for useful edits runs contrary to the purpose of our talk pages and will be reverted on sight. We use our talk pages ONLY for improving our articles. If, on the other hand, you find yourself especially proud of your contributions, you are free to make note of them on your user page. Many of us do, and you won't face any opposition there. Rklawton (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

General discussion about proposed draft

Comments

A Comment on Default and Non-default

File:Wyoplate2009.jpg WY license plate

Damir Ibrisimovic, I can corroborate the first 2 paragraphs above: when growing up in El Paso, Texas we had the opportunity to see the first license plates with pictures in the Western US, from Wyoming. The picture on the license place featured a cowboy on a bucking bronco and the dramatic silhouette remains in my mind as a vivid first impression (when first introduced, the background was a plain solid beige, I believe, and the silhouette was on the left side of the plate). But now that I live in Wisconsin, I often see the Endangered Species license plate with a wolf's head on it on the left side of the plate. Since my first impression of a license plate with a picture on it was the bucking bronco, as I gaze at the WI license plate, my mind's eye shifts from the bronco to the wolf's head, and the times required to perceive the wolf are as you describe. And yes, the wolf's head and the bucking bronco are of similar dimension and shape on the license plate. Perhaps these two illustrations will help the article -- but as I re-examine this, it is an advantage to show only the first image (to simulate the first impression which somehow remains vivid in memory, for me) and to force people to retrieve the next images (to simulate the re-construction process, which somehow is less vivid than the first impression, for me).

I have often wondered why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before; my own father-in-law once described the process of looking at a yard sign which at first impression morphed from one shape to another shape as he got a better look. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This gives me the opportunity to reconstruct what must be happening as I parse the events which make up my driving experience:

In car, driving.
Car in front of me is close enough for me to see the license plate.
License plate is in its usual spot on the car.
License plate has picture on it (fairly unusual as most plates just have letters and numbers - and yes, I am aware that a Wisconsin car's license plate has a small barn, a small sun, and a small sailboat on it - but that is routine and those small pictures can be ignored, as they are a quarter or a sixth of the area of the protrait of the wolf's head).
I remember the license plate archetype (in your terminology: default percept) which I have learned decades before (bucking bronco) in my mind's eye.
I double-check the picture by zooming in on the wolf position (in your terminology: nonconscious cognition is trying to build up and verify a new expected description out of cognitive elements or percepts) on the plate. -- What some people describe as "it leapt out at me".
Yes, it's the wolf (and yes I am aware that sometimes the picture is a fireman's seal or some university campus seal, or a purple heart medal etc. - but the shapes of those pictures is completely different from the wolf - and yes Wisconsin has an inordinate number of these specialized plates) (in your terminology: our description (brain)).
Attention returns to more urgent events.

Sounds like situated cognition, doesn't it. These events are happening for me at an intuitive rate which is God-given, too fast for me to have described on my own. Because you have described them abstractly as you have, above, I can understand your article because that is what is happening for me, concretely, and not abstractly.

Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there are any number of exemplars which you might use to make the rewrite more real for the reader. Some that come to mind are movies, job interviews, cultural stereotypes, political campaigns, workplace interactions, marriages, parent-child interactions, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(Example added.)

Dear Ancheta,

I have a lot of examples, but I am not so sure how familiar they could be to other people. I am grateful therefore for your and others might have. Together we could work out the best for the article.

All of us here have some strong points in our own areas of expertise. And practically all of us could have a meaningful contribution to the article on perception from a variety of perspectives. This is why I “advertised” the rewriting of this article all over the place.

I also share your sentiment (“why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before”). And I can explain this. There are simply people who think that they understand something after reading few books on the topic. Unfortunately a kind of egalitarianism brought this here to an extreme. And practically any small ego can bully you. And I had enough of that...

I certainly hope to gather others like you here and start doing the job properly. Egalitarianism yes, but not unsubstantiated or on technicalities.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

A Request for Basic Tenets

Damir Ibrisimovic, Since I have a different basis for action than you, it may be useful to state somewhere the tenets of 'Active Perception Theory' and how it somehow explains perception more adequately than competing descriptions. They need not be in the article at all, for the purpose of the article is to benefit those who are simply trying to learn more about the basics of perception, not for practioners or academics. What is clear is that we are not simply automatons blindly reacting to stimulus, which is the basis of Descartes' theory. For if that were so, there would be uniform response by members of the cohort, and instead people react to sensation in a spectrum of ways. This is observable.

Rather, people exercise defeasible logic in their reaction to sensation. "Is this a horse snuffling me? I'm sleepy and it sounds like one, so I will drift back to sleep" on my camping trip in Yosemite. Later we discovered that was a Black Bear who ate up the food we had cached on a tree limb. Since I was asleep, and had no experience with bear snuffles before, I was not alarmed in my sleepy state. Now if I had been awake, the perception might well have been different on my part and defeasible logic would have kicked in. And if the bear had licked me instead of just sniffing me I would have probably awakened. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(The Basic Tenets added)

Dear Ancheta,

Your examples are terrific and I would love to see them interwoven within the text of the article. I am just about to exemplify non-monotonic bit with imagery of crime scene investigations; a popular topic for stories and TV series. The way how we write could also be a good example for non-monotonic thinking. (Write, scrap, rewrite, scrap etc. etc.) And if you articulate your experiences within, please do.

As for defeasable logic; I noticed some issues in non-monotonic logic in general. The main one is that end results (of an iterative process) are taken as a basis for articulation of formal relations. Essentially, we always have an iterative process as system components tune themselves with each other until a system settles down into one of few possible stable states. (Klaus Mainzer expressed this well in his book: “Thinking in Complexity”. Unfortunately, he was quite defensive in his writing against potential attacks from the orthodox scientists...)

Of course, we can take these potentially stable states and express them as logical relations, but in real life we are never certain about an outcome. (Note an energy release as a system settles down in a stable state.) And simulated complex systems always manage to find a surprise for us. And that would need to be, in my opinion, an endless addition of new logical relations, mostly as exceptions or belief revisions that invalidate some of other assumed relations. And, to me, this is pretty static way to express systems’ dynamics...

I am trying to resolve these issues by introducing emotional and habitual weights. Accumulation of personal experiences could, in general, explain accumulation of exceptions. I am also thinking of including Kolmogorov math to indicate how a critical weight of exceptions forces us to reorganise our knowledge base. I often exemplify this with Ptolemaic system.

How we see does impact (and is reflected in) practically everything we do. However, although I could go into practically any direction to exemplify and detail, I have to balance all of it against clarity of the article. And here I invented a motto for myself: to artfully tell more with less... And I also need to address how we perceive within our vivid dreams... (Hard to stop yourself, isn't it?)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Preparing for going live.

Comments

The Triangle of Perception

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's message to Congress, December 1, 1862: "What makes a country? First, the land, then the people, then the laws". This paraphrase is by Bernard De Voto. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But perhaps the word "Perception" in the middle of the triangle? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I realized I didn't have the words right, I also realized something about a perception: we only perceive as much as we need to. When I was confronted with the realization that I had read straight past the words to the concepts behind them, I was forced to pay attention to the phrases which made up the concept, and reflect those more faithfully in the labels on the diagram. In other words, when my hierarchy of values kicks in, then my perception of the object becomes more nuanced and accurate. Some people (i.e., me in reading the words) are just not going to care about something until it matters to them. So for example, if a deer is attempting to cross a road, there is the well-known phenomenon of the deer 'freezing' in the headlights of a car, and the deer is likely to stand there until its internal alarms set it free to run away. Another example would then be the spectrum of the diffusion of innovations: first, innovators, then the early adopters, then the early majority, and finally, the late majority, with some laggards never adopting the innovation, because it simply doesn't matter to them. In other words, the triangle explains why some people will never perceive a phenomenon which is visible to others, because one or more of the corners of the triangle is keeping them from perceiving; it is not until they are 'ready' will they perceive. For example, the author of Amazing Grace was blind to the evils of slavery until he saw what he himself had done. In another example, an emperor of China did not perceive that Chinese was a tonal language until a philosopher uttered a sentence composed of the same sound in 4 different tones. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Dear Ancheta,

Job well done with the triangle!

Now about your insight while doing the graphics: spot on. This is why I was thinking about animated graphics. But let me explain this in words with this article as an example.

All of us started from our own subculture; statistics, logic, genetics etc. Consequently, readers who feel comfortable within their own subculture - will have difficulties to read/comprehend parts of this article fully. To overcome this, I have tied my vocabulary to express relations to other comfort zones; enabling the reader to venture into other subcultures. Graphically, this would mean moderate extension of the base line towards cultural angle. Tiny extension of the base line towards genome corner takes ages and I would not worry about that. However, the top of the triangle should move upwards the fastest, because the reader’s own experiences will give plenty of unarticulated meanings to words he/she is reading; facilitating further growth of the triangle.

The best tags to corners would be “genome”, “culture” and “our own” with “experiences” in the middle.

I have been thinking about diffusion of innovations also, but this would double the scope of the article. I must correct your realisation about perception a bit, though. You are only partly right that we perceive only as much as we “need to”. The most of people are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone, but there are those who muster the courage for the leap of faith. And hopefully, this article will encourage few to do so. And when others see it possible, they will follow. And this is the psychology behind the diffusion of innovations...

Thank you very much, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue

Comments

Your Turn

Dear all,

The drafting is over. Please comment. General impressions about the draft will also be welcome.

Now, the hard part of referencing, further readings & external links. All suggestions are welcome.

I would also invite readers, from within the article, positioned at relevant discussion and real life examples, like Ancheta’s, in an introductory section at this talk page. If you have a better alternative, it will be appreciated. (Would be nice to have something like blog.)

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry Ancheta. I think that the deleted bit is now irrelevant. If you think that it still is, please reverse the change. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) )

By custom, even though we edit the article page directly, we customarily leave the talk page entries written by others alone. That would be the advantage of using Flagged Revisions with locking of the Stable version. Out of respect for your exposition I actually do not mind that my reactions were covered up because they can always be reinstated, if need be. I am actually uneasy, as you know. As it stands, the history still reveals the position of the editors at the time of the edits, so they are knowable in principle .

Dear Ancheta,

I would like to inform you that I had and still have quite a few Jewish colleagues and friends with whom I can speak quite frankly even about some typically Jewish issues. I cannot therefore really understand your, rather default, reaction induced by political correctness that prejudiced my words. There is no prejudice in science. Mel was simply drunk, bursting out his prejudices like any drunkard does. End of story? No, another storm of prejudices took place based upon political correctness.

But I can now understand that I could expect much worse prejudices when the article is published. Psyche is much more sensitive tabo than sex, for example. I will therefore accept flagged revision template and write the third draft without Mel’s example.

I was hoping to shortcut developmental stage with his rather educational example, for the article is already too long. I will also have to generalise without the real life examples. Hopefully, I will find a form in which the reader can find own experiences to support it.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But just so you know, that's why editors are leaving your edits on the talk page alone; it is customary. However, if these drafts hit the article page, there is no reason that they would stand as you would wish them to appear, because it is just as customary to treat the article as a contribution by everyone, to be edited at will. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page in anticipation that you will refactor it to support the rewrite. After you start the refactoring I can insert the links. Thank you for your contribution. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point here, but you have just demonstrated an example of saying "A" and doing "B". I actually know how to fix some of the issues in the drafts, but according to the General Rules which you have recently interpolated I ought not to until you are done, as if you were the only editor; you are demonstrating one of the problems in our human cognitive style; we interpolate and back-annotate so that it becomes impossible for us to debug problems in a serial, understandable fashion, and a Kolmogorov zero-one law transition takes place (read revolution). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ancheta,

As with Mel’s example, I will probably admit that I might be saying A while doing B. I know that I am not perfect and that what I am calling for might appear inhibitory. But I am calling for comments all of the time.

The problem, as I see it, seems to be that I am calling for agreements first and above all. I understand that editors here are not used to such practice and might feel inhibited, but I have strong reasons for insisting on agreement.

I have witnessed Wikipedia’s articles losing their coherence beyond recognition. What is actually happening is that, although locally good, interventions of one editor sneak in contradictions with the rest of the text. Over time the accumulated contradictions endanger comprehendability of the whole article.

It is natural that everybody has his/hers own view on a topic. However, different views are never perfect and often hide potential conflicts that can become visible only by seeking an agreement first and above all. Sooner or later the hidden conflicts will become apparent and a grumbling reconciliation will find its form in the articulated change or addition.

As you said earlier, it is like being tied to a stake and holding your ground - but with a difference. It is better to seek common ground first and above all. As Sun-tzu said “winners win first and then go to war; losers go to war first and then seek how to win”.

I am open to suggestions, criticism and everything else that could enhance the article. And I will, probably grumblingly, accept the most, but not before I look at every aspect of the issue raised. This is why I have added comment heading below each section of the article. I will also add comment heading for the article overall.

I am calling again for comments. If I am inhibitory, please forgive me. But consider also a possibility that the inhibition might be self imposed...

Also, thank you Ancheta for reminding me of Kolmogorov’s zero-one law. As I understand it, it was articulated to bypass a really big issue in statistics, as big as hard problem of consciousness is in philosophy. Statistically, a unique phenomenon is impossible or 1/∞=0. I will probably include a reference in the Reality section.

I am still looking where to place your suggestion for reference to situated cognition. Basic Tenets section seems the best. I am missing wording for it, though. If you have a wording, please place it in the comment below.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To all editors: previous history of this talk page is archived above. Damir Ibrisimovic has kindly taken the lead in keeping this article vital and up-to-date. If you have contributions, the encyclopedia welcomes them. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Dear all,

In the following few days, I will rewrite the article. You may have noticed that I do not have many inline citations. I have opted instead for inline links to other articles and external links. This would offer to the reader (directly and indirectly) almost half of Wikipedia to navigate through. And other articles have plenty of further readings and inline citations to offer. External links were used only when I couldn’t find adequate content on Wikipedia. And I am now contemplating few new articles, or changes to the existing ones, to fill in the gaps.

I am still unconvinced that the proposed flagged revision template is suitable in this case. And although there is not much echo here, I suspect that there will be enough other editors interested to keep this article stable until the content sinks in. I will therefore repeat invitation to other, directly implicated projects to at least display their banner here. I will therefore do the following in the next few days:

Delete the irrelevant history on this talk page.
Remove irrelevant bits from the relevant discussion and structure it.
Structure the draft as it should be in the article.
Implement some minor changes in the draft.
Call for final comments.
Implement changes that may result from a discussion.
Rewrite the article.
Remove/edit the discussion made irrelevant by rewriting the article. (I really like Ancheta’s example and would like to have it published as reader’s comment. Not so sure where though and would like to have her signature wherever we place it in an edited form. Open for discussion.)

Some of the stuff above could be executed concurrently. Other is tightly linked in the sequence and requires major editing. And hare I have identified a problem with revision log. It seems that it cannot handle too many changes in one go. Few times I had to reverse changes I made because large chunks of the draft were lost. Fortunately, I implement the changes first in the Word format of the article and redoing the changes in a piecemeal fashion was not a too big hassle. However, changes to the article and this talk page involve directly Wikipedia software. If you do not have a solution for my problem, I will have to do it in a piecemeal fashion and I will ask you for patience until I notify you that I finalised the changes.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: This message is important and I do not want it to be lost in the history. Please, sign below as a confirmation that you read it. I'll suspend my work untill I see few signatures here. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) In general, the edits are supportable. There may be a call for citations but I am sure we will all pitch in for citations and links.

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. If you are proposing replacing the entire article with a new draft it would be helpful to see a comparison version showing all of the changes. Further, it must be an improvement to the current article, not just different. The edit warring, use of nonstandard English, apparent unfamiliarity with and rejection of Wikipedia rules and conventions, and low-level incivility occurring here are all signs that raise doubt that this is the likely outcome. The draft version (which I have moved to its own page: Talk:Perception/draft) is not acceptable. It is not in encyclopedic tone, it contains a lot of original research and personal opinion, it is not properly cited, and overall it does not give an interested lay reader unfamiliar with the subject a good overview of the topic. The current article could use considerable improvement but I don't think it's likely that it can be improved using this approach. It is probably best to do it in small pieces, one paragraph at a time, in each case getting input and consensus from other editors using normal Wikipedia article editing process. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with that statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose making incremental changes to this article instead - preferably preceded by discussion on this talk page. This will give us all the opportunity to consider changes on a case by case basis. Note that talk page discussion of proposed changes is a courtesy but not a requirement. Rklawton (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In case my feelings about this weren't clear, I agree. Changes should be made incrementally. I'll also add that it seems particularly important given the discussions I've seen that where appropriate they contain inline citations to reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall Comments about draft

Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) In general, the edits are supportable. There may be a call for citations but I am sure we will all pitch in for citations and links.

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) General question: How to link internally to a page without the use of the specific wording for the article?

Click edit for this section and see how I did this Rklawton (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I am not very happy with the article on emotions. The critical insight that all of our emotional states are reflected in metabolic changes is missing. I'll have to amend this here. Suggestions?...

Yes, please conduct all discussions for an article in its own talk section. If the subject isn't about improving the Perception article, then it doesn't belong in this talk section. Rklawton (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I am not very happy with habit (psychology) article either. The critical insight that our percepts and thoughts are mostly habitual also is missing. Fortunately, I have elaborated on this here and the link to the article is now obsolete. However, we will have to get involved there also.

Please use this talk page only for improving the article on Perception. Rklawton (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Dear Ancheta, I have finalised the drafting. I copied sections we should keep, but we need to tidy them up. I have also removed comments, I have acted upon, to enable easier proofing. The navigations bars would need athropology, sociology and complex systems navs. We might need to create a new nav for Kolmogorov's math. Please feel free to comment, change etc. If you do a significant change in the text, please let me know in the comment below. I will do the same. On Tuesday (my time) and Monday (your time) we will probably be ready to go live. I am writing this message at 12:30PM (my time). If you note the time difference, we could start acting in tandem. Kind regards,
Damir Ibrisimovic, I am on Central time=07:56PM UTC=--Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I have found the tab on Complex Adaptive System article. We could simply copy it, but I would prefer that we edit it a bit - and I do not know how. At least Norbert Wiener must be dropped from the list of scientists - he completely messed up the concept of information Kolmogorov was wrestling with, for example. Consequently the most in IT industry do not know what they are talking about. And this now includes the general public. And I would not like to propagate so enormous confusion about what is information: talk:information (See my discussion there).

Please use this talk page only for improving the article on Perception. Rklawton (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC) General question: How to enable, if possible, the same numbering in section titles as is in the contests box?

We don't number section headings. See STYLE for our style guidelines. Rklawton (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final Steps

Daer Ancheta,

You might be in the position to call upon best editors worldwide. We do need different perspectives to finalise the article. However, I would not like to wait forever...

I have opted in Further Reading for online retailers. However this could be used as promotional tool by specific online retailers and there could be a contract with Wikipedia re this. Could you see if there is a preferred online retailer?

I have contemplated the following going live strategy:

I would publish the article worldwide and wait few days until the article is replicated. In these few days we will have to be vigilant, though.
After the article is replicated we could move under umbrella of the flagged revisions and pickup some jewels for discussion.
I guess that from then on we could lose some valuable feedback. Could we have a proxy Percept page to pick up these?

I doubt that only two of us could furnish the article properly. The scope of the article is simply too vast. The above approach would provide us with references, further readings etc. much faster.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't log in

Dear Ancheta,

I have asked for adminship and got a reply that I need to log in. But I cannot log in because my id (dibrisim) and password are not recognised. Am I doing something wrong?

I saw however the seeded discussion page.

I will suggest though, that we finish all here, backup the discussion and newly published article and then seed the flagged revision version.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First, create your dibrisim account on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki site; it is a good idea to enable your email as backup access.

Next, login to the Flagged Revisions site with your Meta-Wiki id.

Finally, submit the request as you have tried already. The bureaucrat can then help you. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ancheta,

Thanks. I thought that I only need priviledges..

I am now restructuring the text for an easer flow of thoughts furing the reading. I have also tried to articulate your example, but cudn't turn the file into an image. Please note that we need to repeat images in two sections now. In your case, we need wolf's head plate example in the second section.

Please, review and comment. If you are happy how I addressed your suggestins, remove comments. If you are not happy, complain.

I have only one new section to replace stimuli vs meaning section. I think that I could finish it tomorrow.

And then we could decide what next. I have suggested (above) that we go live here, wait a couple of days and then move under the umbrella. If we can have the protected and the unprotected page, we could pick up valuable comments from the unprotected and worke them out on the protected. The backup and restore should do the rest untill feedback stops trickling.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that we do not yet even have a version of flagged revisions for WP:BLP articles - it was a close run thing, but it was agreed to have them on en.Wikipedia. This can't happen until the software is revised. There is no possibility of non-BLP articles getting flagged revisions without a community discussion and agreement, and I don't see that happening in the near future. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)