Interface theory of perception

[Buket]

What do you think about Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception?

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf

[Strange]

What do you think about it?

[Buket]

I don't know if it is proved or not but as a theory I find it depressing since I would like to see the truth..

[Strange]

Theories are never proved.

[Buket]

Oh really? What would we call it if they were proved?

[Strange]

Impossible.

[Buket]

Impossible.

 

Why?

[Strange]

Because it is always possible that some new information or evidence will be found that shows the theory to be wrong. That is why all scientific theories are provisional. However well tested they are and however confident we are in them.

[Buket]

Because it is always possible that some new information or evidence will be found that shows the theory to be wrong. That is why all scientific theories are provisional. However well tested they are and however confident we are in them.

What is a scientific fact then?

[Strange]

What is a scientific fact then?

 

 

I would say that there is no such thing.

However, the term can be used to refer to observations or evidence:

 

 

 

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science

[arc]

What do you think about Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception?

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf

 

The author proposes the misguided sexual attraction of a male beetle for large beer bottles as a model of how other, and even more complex organisms perceive reality.

 

​CONCLUSIONS

. . . . ."I suspect that few experts will be persuaded by these arguments to adopt the interface theory of perception. Most will still harbor the long-standing conviction that, although we see reality through small portals, nevertheless what we see is, in general, veridical. To such experts I offer one final claim, and one final challenge. I claim that natural selection drives true perception to swift extinction: Nowhere in evolution, even among the most complex of organisms, will you find that natural selection drives truth to fixation, i.e., so that the predicates of perception (e.g., space, time, shape and color) approximate the predicates of the objective world (whatever they might be). Natural selection rewards fecundity, not factuality, so it shapes interfaces, not telescopes on truth [28] (p. 571). The challenge is clear: Provide a compelling counterexample to this claim."

 

Bold mine

 

it's interesting. The beetle's predicament is almost identical to that of the thynnine wasp.

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Plant_Strategies/mimicry.shtml

"The warty hammer orchid of Western Australia produces a chemical scent that is almost identical to the pheromone that the female thynnine wasp releases when she is sexually receptive. The orchid's labellum (lower lip) is also shaped similarly to the body of the female wasp. The male thynnine wasp grasps the imitation female and tries to fly off with her to mate and in the process crashes into the flower structure containing the pollen and the stigma. Pollen from one orchid is carried to another and pollination occurs. The male thynnine wasp's desire to mate as many times as possible lends to this trait of pollinating the warty hammer orchid."

 

Large game hunters commonly use pheromones and the sound of rutting males fighting to fool their prey. Deception is well established within the species.

 

It is also interesting that humans have developed deceptive counter measures;

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/05/science/face-masks-fool-the-bengal-tigers.html

"That finding was a matter of life or death in an experiment being conducted in the Ganges Delta in India, where tigers living under protection in a reserve had been killing about 60 people a year. Arguing that this predator only attacks people from behind, workers in the mangrove forests started wearing face masks on the backs of their heads. Thus far the trick appears to have worked."

 

Then there is the propensity of some human males to attempt to mate with as many females as possible, and what seems to be the counter measure that the larger group established to reduce the likelihood that the resultant offspring would be dependent on the overall group in general.

 

Yes the ultimate counter deception of all; a marriage covenant by oath in front of a deity and the other members of the group.

[Buket]

 

 

 

I would say that there is no such thing.

 

 

 

However, the term can be used to refer to observations or evidence:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science[/

 

I sent Donald Hoffman an email asking him if he proved his theory. He replied yes and sent me an article saying: we state and prove a theorem 'the fitness beats truth' theorem which says that a perceptual strategy that is attuned to fitness will never be dominated by one attuned to an organism independent objective truth'.

Can this theorem be considered as a proof?

[Strange]

You can prove a mathematical theorem but that doesn't prove that it applies to the real world.

 

However, as his underlying point seems to be that we can never know what "reality" truly is, then it all seems pretty pointless because this has been known to philosophers for decades or centuries, maybe millennia.

[Buket]

You can prove a mathematical theorem but that doesn't prove that it applies to the real world.

 

However, as his underlying point seems to be that we can never know what "reality" truly is, then it all seems pretty pointless because this has been known to philosophers for decades or centuries, maybe millennia.

As for philosophers they only think about this idea. They didn't make experiments about this idea.

And I have another question. How can a mathematical theorem be connected to a scientific theory?

[Strange]

As for philosophers they only think about this idea. They didn't make experiments about this idea.

 

 

You can't make experiments to test this. That would mean being able to determine what "reality" really is. And that is impossible.

 

 

 

And I have another question. How can a mathematical theorem be connected to a scientific theory?

 

Most or all scientific theories are based on mathematics and therefore on some number of mathematical theorems.

[Buket]

 

 

You can't make experiments to test this. That would mean being able to determine what "reality" really is. And that is impossible.

 

 

Most or all scientific theories are based on mathematics and therefore on some number of mathematical theorems.

And you say these theorems can't be proved to apply to the real world. So what is the point in comstructing these theorems? 😀

[Strange]

You can use a mathematical theorem to build a hypothesis. You can then test that hypothesis by observation and experiment. If the evidence is repeatedly consistent with the hypothesis then it may be accepted as a theory; in other words a good explanation of the observed phenomena.

 

So the point (of science) is to create better theories to describe the world.

[Buket]

You can use a mathematical theorem to build a hypothesis. You can then test that hypothesis by observation and experiment. If the evidence is repeatedly consistent with the hypothesis then it may be accepted as a theory; in other words a good explanation of the observed phenomena.

 

So the point (of science) is to create better theories to describe the world.

So you say Hoffman has evidence..

[Strange]

So you say Hoffman has evidence..

 

I have no idea. I haven't read the article. And I don't know if he has published a scientific paper on this.

[Buket]

 

 

I have no idea. I haven't read the article. And I don't know if he has published a scientific paper on this.[/

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf

In case you want to read it...

[Strange]

That is the same article you posted at the start of the thread. I still haven't read it (and I have no interest in reading it). And I still have no idea if he has published any scientific papers on this.

[Phi for All]

And you say these theorems can't be proved to apply to the real world. So what is the point in comstructing these theorems?

 

A theory is more powerful than a proof, imo. A theory has the ability to improve when better information is obtained. A proof means the answer will always be the exact same.

 

What happens when you've been looking for something, and you find it and think "This is exactly what I was looking for"? YOU STOP LOOKING. In science, we don't EVER want to stop looking, so we don't look to prove an idea, we look instead at showing that it isn't false. Does that make sense?

 

There's a big difference between saying "I think this answer is true" and saying "We've tested this is many ways, and have never found it to be false". I sort of see it the way a sculptor would, removing the stone that isn't part of the sculpture (all the false parts), and what's left is the creation you want (the theory). "Truth" and "answers" are too subjective, and science needs objectivity in order to be trustworthy.

[Buket]

 

I have no idea. I haven't read the article. And I don't know if he has published a scientific paper on this.

In one of the emails of Hoffman he said that particles do not exist when not perceived and I said they do exist but their momentum and position is not detected prior to observation. He did not accept it. He said particles do not exist when not perceived.. Which one of us is right?

[Strange]

In one of the emails of Hoffman he said that particles do not exist when not perceived and I said they do exist but their momentum and position is not detected prior to observation. He did not accept it. He said particles do not exist when not perceived.. Which one of us is right?

 

 

It sounds like a difference of interpretation. What does the mathematics say?

[Buket]

 

 

It sounds like a difference of interpretation. What does the mathematics say?

Well I don't know what the mathematics say but he says I proved the mathematical therem..

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full