Evolutionary Advantage to Hearing Octaves as "The Same?"

Factual Questions
101

As the evobio’ist I wrote to has not written me back yet, I walked across campus this afternoon to look for open doors in the department.

You’ve only got my word on it, but I do want to report that the person I ended up chatting with (another evobio prof) said that I’m basically right. He was also quick and careful to point out that the whole conversation as I described it (in terms practically identical to those I used in the email I reported above, for the record,) is kind of crazy, in the sense that its not the kind of thing evobio’ists ever talk or probably even ever think about. With this I agree, and would not ever have disagreed.

His point was that its very difficult to say how you should arbitrated discussions about what’s “possible” since evobio’ists are still trying to figure out what’s actually going on.

But he also said that as far as he could tell, nothing about the concepts “evolution,” “physics,” and “perception” make it necessary that our perceptual faculties directly track physical quantities in our environment. They are likely to evolve to do this kind of tracking when it is advantageous to do so, and they are likely to evolve not to do this tracking when it is advantageous not to do so, and he said he didn’t see any reason to think it couldn’t be advantageous not to do so–just as I have been arguing in this thread.

He also started naming off examples from actual perceptual faculties. The only one I can remember now is this: We smell similar molecules as dissimilar and smell dissimilar molecules as similar. He also agreed with me that the contrast between color perception and light physics provides a good illustration of my point.

Well, anyway, that’s my report. You can take it for what its worth, which you may think is not much, and how could I blame you?

There’s something else I hadn’t thought of, though I didn’t get a chance to ask the evobio’ist about it. We all know that if you put one hand in hot water and the other in cold water, then immerse them in the same bowl of lukewarm water, they will report different temperatures. Now that’s due, of course, to something like a “tiring out” of neurons, just as with afterimages in vision. So its not a normal use of our sense faculty. But recall what my claim is: just that it is possible for the reports of sense faculties to fail to track actual physical quantities amongst the things causing their stimuli in any direct way. And that is exactly what happens in the water example I just described. This particular effect probably isn’t to be explained by any advantage it gives us–I can’t think of any such advantage–but rather as simply a neutral effect of other facts about our neurobiology. That’s fine, it’s right in line with, or at least compatible with, my point. It is possible for perceptual systems to evolve (for whatever reason) that have this characteristic: That they suggest judgments of similarity and identity which do not track actual physical similarities and identities in any direct way. They can map similar things to judgments of dissimilarity, and map dissimilar things to judgments of similarity.

This happens in vision. It happens in smell. It happens in temperature perception. I’ve got three actual, physical examples.

-FrL-

102

Is that what all this fuss has been about? Good lord, man, you could have just brought up synesthaesia as an example of perceptions that are mapped contrary to reality, stated that since such can occur, similar results, possibly involving atypical perceptions within senses rather than across senses, can, under the right set of circumstances, actually evolve instead of being the result of anomolous brain wiring, and there ya go. Seems rather, I dunno, intuitive, and probably not something that most folks would have actually disagreed with, had you explained your position better.

103

What have I said in this conversation’s part of the thread that shouldn’t be construed as trying to make this point?

Here, in a moment, I’ll repost all the bits where I state my thesis, we’ll see what happens.

-FrL-

104

So here is a collection of the statements I have made in the present sub-conversation within the thread, which I took to constitute summaries of the position I am defending. I have arranged them in a different order than that in which they appear in the thread. I have arranged them such that, generally, the statements which are most precise and/or clear come first, less precise and/or clear come later.

I will then list the kinds of examples I took to illustrate my point

–

I believe it is possible for organisms to evolve perceptual systems which have the following characteristic. They cause the organism to make judgments of “similarity” which, taken in collection, do not map in any direct way the actual similarities that exist in the environmental stimuli which act on that perceptual system.

–

I will not be able to convince you that it was entirely physically possible for creatures to evolve such that they percieve dissimilar things as similar.

–

As I have pointed out, similarity in the environment does not have to translate to similarity in sensory phenomena.

–

This is not true. (Not as I interpret your claim.) Mathematical structures existent in the physics that works out among the things producing the stimuli do not have to be reflected in the way the brain ultimately ends up sorting out those stimuli.

–

What I have meant is that we could have (and have) evolved in ways such that our phenomenology does not match in any direct or linear fashion the physics which produces in us that phenomenology.

By a “phenomenology” here I mean just, basically, our sense perceptions and the relationships we find between them.

So, for example, it is possible (and actual) that the facts about the “color patches” that seem to us to make up our “visual percepts” do not directly reflect the facts about the frequencies of light which cause those “visual percepts.”

–

I do not think their objective similarity necessitates my hearing them as similar. But I do think it would tend very usually to cause organisms to hear them as similar.

I think we tend to hear things that are objectively similar as similar, not because of any logical point about a necessitation relation between objective and perceptual similarity, but rather, because it is generally best for us as organisms that we percieve objectively similar things as similar.

–

To be clear, as I said in that post, I think it almost always is in an organism’s best interests to see the world as it really is. But it is not always, only almost always

–

(Now for the examples I thought illustrate my point…)

–

Our perceptual structure makes it seem like it makes sense to arrange colors into a wheel, while the physics of light do not.

–

We humans judge purple to be similar to red, but the light waves coming from purple surfaces and red surfaces are completely different: as different as visible wavelengths can be, in fact. So apparently in this case we do not see things “as they are.” So it is not implausible to think that this could have happened in other cases as well: for example, judgments of sameness in sound.

–

And yet physics, physiology and evolution have conspired to produce a visual perception system in which sortings into similarity classes have only the most tenuous relationship to any objective similarity sorting we might perform on the physical cause of the stimuli involved.

–

(Well, anyway, I’ve got several appeals to facts about vision. Also, not having to do with vision are the following…)

–

He also started naming off examples from actual perceptual faculties. The only one I can remember now is this: We smell similar molecules as dissimilar and smell dissimilar molecules as similar. He also agreed with me that the contrast between color perception and light physics provides a good illustration of my point.

–

There’s something else I hadn’t thought of, though I didn’t get a chance to ask the evobio’ist about it. We all know that if you put one hand in hot water and the other in cold water, then immerse them in the same bowl of lukewarm water, they will report different temperatures. Now that’s due, of course, to something like a “tiring out” of neurons, just as with afterimages in vision. So its not a normal use of our sense faculty. But recall what my claim is: just that it is possible for the reports of sense faculties to fail to track actual physical quantities amongst the things causing their stimuli in any direct way. And that is exactly what happens in the water example I just described. This particular effect probably isn’t to be explained by any advantage it gives us–I can’t think of any such advantage–but rather as simply a neutral effect of other facts about our neurobiology. That’s fine, it’s right in line with, or at least compatible with, my point. It is possible for perceptual systems to evolve (for whatever reason) that have this characteristic: That they suggest judgments of similarity and identity which do not track actual physical similarities and identities in any direct way. They can map similar things to judgments of dissimilarity, and map dissimilar things to judgments of similarity.

–

And finally, I’ll say that I do think synesthesia gives us the basis for another argument for the point I’m making.

Looking over all the above, I can not see how my point should have been missed.

-FrL-

105

I forgot one of the more important statements of my position. Its not the most too-the-point, but it expresses the basic idea plus a little bit about a way to make sense of the possibility of its being true:

–

But he also said that as far as he could tell, nothing about the concepts “evolution,” “physics,” and “perception” make it necessary that our perceptual faculties directly track physical quantities in our environment. They are likely to evolve to do this kind of tracking when it is advantageous to do so, and they are likely to evolve not to do this tracking when it is advantageous not to do so, and he said he didn’t see any reason to think it couldn’t be advantageous not to do so–just as I have been arguing in this thread.

–

This is the statement of my position which makes most direct and clear the disagreement we are having, as you guys have said that something about evolution, physics and perception (or at least as one of you put it “physiology”) necessitates that like environmental factors will cause like perceptions and also that like perceptions correspond to like environmental factors. That’s what I’m disagreeing with, as you can see from the above and from my previous post.

-FrL-

106

Because, to be perfectly frank, your phrasing and word usage is often extremely difficult to parse. I’ve had to read many of your statements a few times before I actually figured out what you were trying to say, and even then I’m not entirely sure my interpretation was correct in every case. There were a few that I’m still not completely sure I get your meaning. You use phrases which aren’t quite meaningful in the context you’re trying to use them, and it’s very frustrating at times to try to understand them, to be honest with you. It would behoove you to express yourself in simpler terms, or at least think about what you’re trying to say more carefully.

Just my $0.02. Take it for what it’s worth.

107

Examples please?

Amongst my co-departmentalists (:)) I’m thought of as a particularly clear writer. But it may be that the style of writing that is “clear” in my field of study has actually leaked over to and done damage to my less “academic” writing endeavors.

I’d like to prevent this in the future if at all possible.

I’m especially interested also in what you mean by calling some of it “meaningless.”

(Another response though is this: Maybe you have to think about it before you understand what I’m saying because we’re talking about an inherently difficult subject. But maybe not. I’d need to think about some examples.)

-FrL-

108

Sorry to jump into the middle of this, but I have been following along since the beginning.

I agree, but I think in most cases it is in our best interests to perceive things as directly as possible. Clearly there are cases where there is some interpretation involved, as I think is the case with your light wheel example, but for the most part, I think simplicity is best.

This is what I see as the biggest difference between your position and that of some of the others. (I am speaking only of my understanding of their position. I hope they dont mind.) I don’t believe that even in your own example, it is advantageous to change the way the prey species perceive sound.

If the “imitator” bird’s call is one octave higher, it should be very easily distinguishable from the first. Octaves do not sound the ‘same’. They have similar qualities, but not the same. I do not believe it is necessary for them to change the way they perceive sound in order to learn the appropriate response to different threats. I don’t believe the prey needs to ‘group’ sounds into responses. Each threatening sound is capable of illiciting an appropriate action.

109

I didn’t mean (and I think I didn’t say) that the presence of the imitators necessitates the dropping of octave perception, just that it makes the dropping of octave perception one possibility, and also that, given certain highly artificial constraints on the environment these creatures live in, it is about equally adaptive (and so likely to be adopted) as the other possible evolutionary strategies you allude to.

So I still think its a decent illustration of my point.

I don’t have much to say about anything else you wrote, except that I think it was a good contribution to the discussion, so thanks for that!

-FrL-

110

The part that went on for three pages. Obviously, something wasn’t getting across. Other folks were addressing the question in the OP: what is the evolutionary advantage of hearing things as they are (ultimately)? The to-the-point response: it’s not necessarily the result of a direct advantage, but more likely expediency as a result of physical laws. At some point, while people were still explaining how the physics of sound work and how that translates to the fact that our current physical aural apparatus and cognitive mapping are the best available solution, not because it was necessarily evolutionary advantageous in the sense that “perceiving sounds in this manner increases the likelihood of passing on one’s genes”, but because form likely followed function in this instance (and likely very early on at that), you wandered off into hypothetical land and everyone started arguing something different, so it’s only natural no-one agreed with anyone else.

At least that’s my take on the thread. But then, I wasn’t really a participant, so others will have to chime in on what they thought warranted three pages of everyone repeating the same things back and forth past each other :stuck_out_tongue:

111

I’ll be happy to when I have some time to sit down and go through your posts to find some useful examples. It’s not like everything you say is gobbledygook or difficult to read, but sometimes you tend to get a little convoluted with your writing. Note that we’ve had at least one biology professional asking you for clarification in this thread because he couldn’t quite understand what you were trying to ask, so it isn’t just me. :slight_smile:

112

For the record, an example of my “professional” writing (quotation marks because I’m just a student, really and strictly speaking) can be found [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=411734. Now hey, I didn’t say it’s supposed to be good writing*, just that it’s the kind of thing I find profs etc. saying is quite clear, and that partly as a result of stylistic decisions.

-FrL-

For one thing, it reads kind of choppy. Thats a perennial problem for me. For another thing, its not particularly engaging–it doesn’t grab the reader. I’m not so great at those more “rhetorical” aspects of writing, though I am actively trying to work on them.

113

Obviously, no doubt about it. But what I said is I don’t see why it shouldn’t have gotten across.

As I noted several times in the course of the process you describe (see esp. my post number 68) I considered the OP completely and satisfactorily answered at a very early stage. People just kept challenging me afterwards about this one point from something I had said in an early post, and there came to be a debate over that point.

But you’re right: People may have been still trying to assimilate my comments to the thoughts I expressed in the OP – even though I mentioned several times that they should not be so assimilated – and that may have caused some misunderstanding.

I still want to hear from Blake, Trainwreck, and Exapno Mapcase among others as to whether they think indeed this has all been a misunderstanding of some kind, or whether they still think I’ve got something fundamentally wrong.

-FrL-

114

Se, that’s not bad at all. It’s clear and I understand what you’re trying to say. I’d wager it’s because you thought it out more carefully before you “put pen to paper” as it were. When you (and this a general “you”) rush your thoughts into writing, you lose focus and clarity. And if you aren’t entirely sure about what it is you’re trying to say, certainly your reader won’t be, either.

115

No no, I know it’s not just you. :stuck_out_tongue:

If you ever do get a chance, I’d appreciate some comments. And if you never do get a chance, I’d never hold it against you.

-FrL-

116

I do in fact just write the first thing that comes to mind, practically, when doing SDMB stuff.

It might be more constructive for me to do otherwise.

There are factors of fun and convenience to be weighed, of course. But still, this bears thinking about. I’m not here just to entertain myself, after all.

Yeah, I’m going to think about this.

-FrL-

117

No problem; I’m happy to do it. Although, to avoid clogging up this thread with stuff that’s only tangentially relevant, perhaps email would be a better venue. Or PMs,l if you prefer. Either is fine with me; go ahead and send a message whichever way you prefer.

118

Please demonstrate that colors which humans judge to be similar are in fact dissimilar from each other. And if you are going to repeat that canard that they are “n” nanometers apart, you need explain why you believe that “n” nanometers apart means “more dissimilar.” I will also point out that closely adjacent auditory wavelengths are also perceived as very similar, in fact at higher pitches they are nearly indistinguishable from one another. You will find there is no mathematical, physical justification for this false proof that you keep repeating. And once you grasp this, maybe you will understand that our senses do in fact represent a consistent picture of the physical world within the limits of their acuity.

119

I find your writing incomprehensible. I don’t understand what you trying to say, and I don’t think you understand what you’re trying to say. If you do, then it certainly isn’t making its way to the words you use. You seem to define terms in your own peculiar sense (e.g. “same” is not “identical”), come up with concepts that no one else understands, and think that hypotheticals are examples.

Worse, in this thread you posted something no one understood, made comments that were incomprehensible or flat wrong in response to the flailing of people trying to come up with some scientific interpretation of your words, repeatedly berated people who kept telling you that your comments were wrong, and then finally when somebody managed to hit upon an explanation that you liked, seized upon it and declared that you were right and had been saying exactly that all along.

Do not tell me that this is not what you did. This is what your words read like to someone outside of your head.

I dropped out of the thread because I did not like your behavior in it. You may have seen it as honestly struggling to cope with difficult ideas, but it most certainly did not come across that way. If everyone who is coming into a thread tells you that you don’t understand evolution, physics, math, biology, or how to count to three, believe them. Whether you do or not, it’s nowhere in the words you’re using and that’s all we have to deal with.

I don’t think this has been a misunderstanding on the part of anyone in this thread except you. It may be an issue of style. I’ve noticed a number of posters over the years who do not ask simple questions on issues they know nothing about, but make assertions and theories that they use to argue with until they come around to the respondents point of view and then declare victory. This may be an oversimplistic way of representing that style, but from the other side all I can is that it is the most frustrating and time wasting style of pedagogy. If this has indeed become common, then I’m glad I’m not a teacher.

Since I’m not a teacher, I can’t tell you how to fix any of these problems. All I can ask is that you don’t deny their existence as you denied the existence of all the mistakes people have been accusing of for more than 100 posts.

120

This happens so frequently, there’s a name for them – “metamers” – colors that appear to be the same which have different spectral properties.