# Towards a unified theory of perception, cognition, language, Reality and realities. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331 "2005-03-07T08:13:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/21 "2005-03-07T21:03:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > mmmm? > > Let’s work hard to keep this civil. As someone who is expounding _at length_ on the workings of language, with both its promise and its shortcomings, you should be able to see that the following sentence > would have been much more conducive to further discussion had it been phrased: > > “Just wanted to correct one _point_ before I go.” > or > “Just wanted to correct one _misunderstanding_ before I go.” > or even > “Just wanted to correct one _error_ before I go.” > > In a discussion on language in which the participants have a history of less than excessive cordiality, there are appropriate and less appropriate responses if one wishes to focus the discussion on the ideas and not the personalities. Would you mind emailing me **Tom?** I’d like to discuss this somewhere that it won’t tie up the thread. I see little difference between the words ‘falsehood’ and ‘error’ besides that falsehood has a possible connotation of deliberate action (which I did not realize at the time I posted). And from what I’ve read, you are allowed to say someone is lying in GD (even though that was certainly not my intent here.) I will of course abide by whatever regulations you would like to see in this thread. I simply meant to state that the claims made were false, so I said it was a falsehood. If I used inflamatory langauge I apologize, such was not my intent. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/22 "2005-03-07T21:35:23Z")
E-mail sent. We now return you to your regular debate, already in progress. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/23 "2005-03-07T21:36:00Z")
I’m waiting for about 200 pages to print, so I’ve got a few minutes of downtime right now, here goes: > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I don’t understand the question. We are evolutionarily “successful” in that we’re alive today. What are you suggesting is evolutionary “success” tomorrow? Breeding like bunnies and wiping out every other extant species? Naw, by a greater “success” I mean that we should strive to eliminate certain problems such as bigotry and racism. Problems which I see as being directly analagous to the situation of color perception. Reality may be modeled as analog, not digital. As such, things exist along a full spectrum (no pun intended), just like color. There is really no reason to cut off a continuing specturm at X nanometer and then say that X+1 nanometers is a totally different entity. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > As for “accord with Reality”, you’ll again have to help me out a little. If Reality is what is input to _minds_, and thus without minds there is no Reality, then Reality **cannot** accord any greater - it’s as great as it can be because it is Reality by _definition_. If there can be Reality _in absence of_ minds (for those billions of years before life, say), then you’re really just talking about [epistemology](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=285766). I do not believe I’m discussing epistemology, at least not directly. I’m very busy right now, would you mind either giving me a summary of the thread you linked to, or pointing out elucidative points/posts? Now, as to the nature of Reality, I do believe it is accurate to say “Reality is what is input to our minds” but that that doesn’t tell us the whole story. Reality can also be what we do not perceive. UV light, for example, is part of Reality. In a rough analogy, it would be like saying “Ice cream is what I’m eating right now.” Doesn’t mean that ice cream is what I’m always eating, or in order to ice cream I must be eating it. > [@Eonwe](#): > > But it seems like we’re already at 100% survival as a species, aside from either self-inflicted destruction or natural disaster which wouldn’t be affected be a more fine-tuned perception of Reality. My personal belief, and one of my contentions in this thread, is that by being aware of categorical perception and having consciousness-of-abstracting will lead us to the realization that categories are simply linguistic fictions, and not necessarily reflective of Reality. As such, I believe that self-inflicted destruction on a ‘national’ level, (eg. war) would be much less likely. > [@Eonwe](#): > > When you say evolution, do you mean it in the Darwinistic sense? Because again, I’m not seeing how perception is holding back the genetic evolution of the species (even a self-directed evolution). Since we all seem to function perfectly well within the limits of our senses and socially-influenced perception, what need is there for evolution? > > Take colors for example. We are limited in our differentiating colors by the words we use to describe them. We have those words because they were necessary culturally in some way. So, in that sense, we see all the colors that matter. It seems like you’re creating a need that doesn’t exist that would run counter to a sense of ‘evolving’ to better the species. When I say evolution I do mean in the darwinistic sense, but I include memetics as well as genetics when I talk about evolution. I believe that the evolutionary path of perception is not towards an end goal of perfect accuracy, but, rather, a continual refinement with no end goal possible. > [@Matt](#): > > If I understand the OP correctly, you are claiming that our local environment, culture and language shapes our perceptual filters so as to affect our internal model of reality. The question being, is this a problem and what can we do about it? You understand correctly. I do believe it is a problem, especially in personal/international relations and the free inquiry of Reality. As for what we can do about it, I would propose linguistic/cognitive/semantic training of all students starting from, say, first grade on. > [@Matt](#): > > I don’t necessarily concede that having a “truer” perception of reality is an advantage - we filter out data for a reason. The more detailed the map, the closer it accords with the territory, this is true. But maps are simplified for a reason, according to their use. Try navigating the London Underground using a surface street map rather than the massively distorted and abstract Underground map and you’ll get the point. The street map contains more information and in a certain sense is a truer reflection of reality, but the interchange relationships of the Underground stations are missing. This is accurate. When I was living in London I’d have had a hell of a time getting around using only my A to Zed. I believe, however, that there are certain instances where ‘best fit’ maps are either insufficent. For instance, a ‘best fit’ map works just fine if I want to know how to get between Googe St. and Tottenham Court. It works much less efficiently if I attempt to talk about, say, the fundamental characteristics of any ‘group’ of humans. **erislover** , Your post on a discussion between philosophers is neat, but you’ve misrepresented my position. I used the optical illusion as merely one example of how perception can be distorted by brain functions. If I have somehow misunderstood the point you were making I apologize, but I don’t believe that I am saying what you had my ‘character’ say in your discussion. **Arwin** : thanks much. ~bows humbly~ Namaste. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/24 "2005-03-07T22:11:01Z")
Ok, these PDF’s are printing slow, I’ve got a few more minutes before I run: > [@SentientMeat](#): > > SentientMeat: It _wasn’t_ a problem in our evolutionary history, in which our visual cogitive modules used cues from our environment to gauge length. But when special illusions are _designed to fool_ those visual cognitive modules, one might call it a ‘problem’ which we have not yet evolved the cognitive modules to overcome. Another few thousand years of people ultimately dying earlier or breeding less successfully because they couldn’t accurately gauge the differences in length between the middle lines might do so. This could be the case even if, in our evolution, we somehow managed to **lose** language. I was not using that as an example of a big problems. Rather, simply an example of an instance in which perception is affected by enviorment. I’m actually somewhat surprised that people are interested in that example, I find the studies on color to be far more important. To each their own… or is there something I need to clarify that’s gotten lost in translation? And with that, my readings for my seven o’ clock are printed… I’m sorry for the brief nature of my replies and cutting-and-running. I promise I’ll give everybody the attention they deserve later tonight once I get home from class. ---
**Author:** ![Boldface\_Type](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5e925/32.png) [@Boldface\_Type](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boldface_Type)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/25 "2005-03-07T22:17:21Z")
Some more gems from the [twm](http://twm.co.nz/) site which **FinnAgain** has quoted several times: “All artificial external technology is secondary; consciousness is primary and more fundamental. Therefore, it follows that a highly advanced and autonomous primal field of consciousness [a.k.a. God, Prime Creator, Io, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, Brahma, Paramatma, etc.] is infinitely more powerful than any artificial external technology upon which all developed economies are heavily dependent. Naturally, this includes EM and nuclear technologies which are derived from this field of potential. Furthermore, an individualised aspect (human consciousness) fully aware of this field as itself is capable of displaying (see holographic paradigm) similar creative-destructive abilities. Such an individual could be called a “knower of the Field”. In most cases however, whether these abilities are actualized is uncertain without dedicated application” "The next significant step came in the late 1980s when a Russian born physicist named Dr. Yury Khronos immigrated into the United States and invented an electronic machine that could generate non-physical information fields that directly interacts with the human energy fields. Western scientists had finally advanced enough to understand and interpret what was known about Chi or Prana in the eastern countries for thousands of years. Our team knows Dr. Khronos’ technology is generating Chi because we work with many Chi aware people. One exceptionally Chi aware member of our team is Dong Chen, who is an eastern trained medical specialist. " “…the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain is …when it is put together with Bohm’s theory. For if the concreteness of the world…is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram…what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion,…This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram’s views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm …” “This emerging trans-modern worldview, involves a shift in the locus of authority from external to “inner knowing.” It has basically turned away from the older scientific view that ultimate reality is “fundamental particles,” and trusts perceptions of the wholeness and spiritual aspect of organisms, ecosystems, Gaia and Cosmos. This implies a spiritual reality, and ultimate trust in the authority of the whole. It amounts to a reconciliation of scientific inquiry with the “perennial wisdom” at the core of the world’s spiritual traditions” "In addition, it is traditionally accepted that expansions of consciousness often are related to changes in subtle energies that cannot be quantified. These latter “energies,” which are said to be associated with interactions and with transcendence, may not, in fact, actually be involved with known physical fields. " ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/26 "2005-03-07T22:24:15Z")
I quoted the cite in reference to the experiments conducted and the views of various scientists. I find it to be irrelevant if the creator of the site also wants to use the theory to argue for vampires and boogeymen. In fact, I believe that a focus on what the designer of the site wants to use it to prove, rather than the research itself, is essentially an ad hominem. I would also note that Albert Einstein wrote in his personal letters that he believed (I think it was) ESP and telekenisis would be proven to exist, but that their basis would be in physics and not ‘magic’. Are we to invalidate the theory or relativity because of what Einstein thought it might prove? Oh and by the way, would you please link to some of your statements? A few url’s would be very helpful. Now I really must be going, I’ll check in later. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/27 "2005-03-07T22:31:55Z")
What you are calling “distortion” is what I am calling “a learned impression,” or something like. Perhaps even a favorable one. The direct perception is not aligned with the perceived measurement. What is not obvious from your post is why this is a problem. As the conversation with **SentientMeat** went, it is not clear that this difference is not, in fact, the _response_ to a socially selected problem in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Boldface\_Type](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5e925/32.png) [@Boldface\_Type](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boldface_Type)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/28 "2005-03-07T22:59:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I quoted the cite in reference to the experiments conducted and the views of various scientists. I find it to be irrelevant if the creator of the site also wants to use the theory to argue for vampires and boogeymen. In fact, I believe that a focus on what the designer of the site wants to use it to prove, rather than the research itself, is essentially an ad hominem. Well, it was unclear whether you shared the views of the site author, and it was plausible that you might, given that you linked so freely to the site. I will assume then that you do not think that the holographic model of the ‘mind’ explains parapsychological phenomena and similar extreme views. > [@](#): > > I would also note that Albert Einstein wrote in his personal letters that he believed (I think it was) ESP and telekenisis would be proven to exist, but that their basis would be in physics and not ‘magic’. Are we to invalidate the theory or relativity because of what Einstein thought it might prove? I do not understand what you mean. First, the theory of relativity has not proven ESP etc., and ESP etc. are not even conventionally accepted phenomena. When ESP is an accepted phenomenon, then we can begin to explain how it works. Explaining how it works before it has been proven to exist is not terribly productive. > [@](#): > > Oh and by the way, would you please link to some of your statements? A few url’s would be very helpful. You have the cites I have provided, and you have access to a library or online journals. Plus, if you have not already read most of the cites I gave (the categorical colour perception cites, anyway) then you are not well informed on the topic at hand. Some of the links you provided actually summarise some of the catgeorical colour perception stuff, although your interpretations seem a little shaky (e.g., in reference to Lucy & Schweder’s experiment). Also, it’s often not a good idea to trust in web summaries of research - far better to go back to the source, time and energy permitting. If you do not have the time or energy to go back to source then that’s understandable. However, many of these cites are cornerstones of categorical colour perception. I can summarise any of these cites if you have specific questions, but it’s better for you to read them yourself, I think. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/29 "2005-03-08T02:46:45Z")
> [@](#): > > I do not understand what you mean. First, the theory of relativity has not proven ESP etc., and ESP etc. are not even conventionally accepted phenomena. His point is that you had suggested that several of his references were suspect because the elaborated arguments on those web sites wandered into the arena of the odd. His question was whether wandering into the odd (as he reports Einstein to have done) then invalidates any _other_ work produced by the person wandering into the odd, be it Einstein or students of the hologrammatic mind. With the more recent declarations, it is hoped that we have now gotten those questions out of the way and can now return to figuring out whether it is possible to actually use language in any meaningful way or whether language corrupts reality. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/30 "2005-03-08T05:27:48Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Fascinating stuff. Put together so well and containing so much I agree with – which is why I was surprised to see the actual question at the end. First, thank you 🙂 > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I would be surprised if you’d not concede that many people’s realities encompass ideas/concepts/explanations that are not simple extensions of (or interpretations of) Reality. It seems to me that to discuss the education of our children, the training of our semantic reactions, and the construction of verbal and written utterances in order to reach the greatest accord with Reality, one must take into account the fact (if you concede it as fact) that reality encompasses more than that found in Reality. Interesting point, I’d not thought of it like that before. I suppose it would work both ways… reality contains things which are not to be found in Reality (words themselves, for example) and Reality contains things which are not found in reality (objects, for example). > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > This is not a question of whether reality should match Reality exactly (or even closely); it is an acceptance that reality does _not_ match Reality and how to work with that fact. To answer the questions requires some exploration of the territory of reality. Agreed. I suppose that the model I’m most comfortable with has us refining our language continually, with no end goal in sigh other than greater accuracy. I think it would probably be unwise to assume (and possibly contradict the second law of thermodynamics) that there can ever be a perfect transfer of anything. Although, if work with quantum entanglement offer any insight, information itself (or perhaps Information) seems to move FTL and not obey the physical laws which we’re aware of… but that’s neither here nor there. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > (Gah – this is like Heidegger, with “being” vs. “Being”, etc.) Mwahahahah! > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > It’s not that there’s no topic of debate; rather it’s that the topic is so nebulous and huge that more foundations are needed. Agreed. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > For instance, where do ethics come in? If we’re discussing the education of our children, I posit that ethics is a necessary and desirable thing to teach. This is a question which’s been brought up (usually by me) in most of my classes the last semester. There are structural problems with teachers-as-authorities, and yet, it is part of education’s job to create good citizens. I wonder if it would not be more fruitful to teach proper semantic habits, and then worry about ethics later on, say, middle school and high school? > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Does Reality have an ethical system? Perhaps I’m reading too much into the final question… I think you may indeed be reading too much into it, but I’ll try to answer. I do think that proper semantic habits would yield positive results in terms of interactions on a personal rather than categorical level. I also think it’s a short step to go from the idea that “blacks” or “Jews” exist in far greater variety than a linguistic category might present, to the idea that it would be wrong to discriminate against any ‘group’ on its supposed fundamental characteristics. So to a degree, I do think ethics are part of reality. And yet in another sense, I think it’s a seperate field. (And as a Thelemite, I’m tempted to quote Uncle Al;)) > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I would also take issue with the idea of a holographic mind; a more plausible explanation (in my opinion) is the interconnectedness of neurons. But that ends up a piddling detail in this context. (And, on preview, I’d second **Arwin** ’s answer.) I will agree that the model of mind as holographic need not be a 1:1 correlation. But I also think that if we abstract it as a model/metaphor rather than a literal statement of Reality, it might be more effective. There are also some interesting effects, such as Libet showing that there is a backward projection in time going on in terms of stimulus and awareness. (This does not seem all that surprising, as anti-photons are essentially moving backwards in time) Other folks, I shall get to you, I just got home from class a short while ago and I feel like some Slack. Oh and **Tom** , thanks for elaborating on my point. I was wrong though it seems, as Einstein was not saying that he believed quantum mechanics would prove telepathy, but that it was absurd since it led to the a possible conclusion of telepathy. Also, it was telepathy and not ESP and he saw that as the implication of the EPR paradox. And just so you don’t think I’m without a cite: [“One can escape from this conclusion only by either assuming that the measurement of S1 (telepathically) changes the real situation of S2 or by denying independent real situations as such to things which are spatially separated from eath other. Both alternatives appear to me entirely unacceptable.”](http://www.williamjames.com/Theory/PHYSICS.htm) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/31 "2005-03-08T06:53:18Z")
> [@Boldface Type](#): > > I’m going to restrict most of my comments to your references to categorical colour perception, given that this is where you seem to be straying furthest from the path. Please elaborate on this. How, exactly, have I ‘strayed from the path’? > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Note that some of the optical illusions on the page you cite are based upon low-level mechanisms, and are thus not illustrative of ‘striving to make patterns meaningful’. This isn’t a problem at all, as you only need one example of the brain creating patterns out of stimuli. Examples where it does not simply go to reinforce the weak S/W/K. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Unfortunately, there is no way to perceive ‘Reality’ given that the only reality we receive is that which arrives via our senses. However, reality seems to work quite well and our individual realities seem to agree quite well… You can indeed perceive Reality by means other than our direct senses (I assume this is what you meant?). For instance, by looking at my computer desk, I see a solid object. Physics, however, tells me that it’s just a cloud of probability. The reality I abstract is not Reality. Also, depending on one’s language, there are very real reprocussions in terms of functioning withing space/time. [See this PDF on deixis](http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/dasen/MishraIJP.pdf) > [@Boldface Type](#): > > A statement of the bleedin’ obvious. Who would ever think that the brain just stores info? I find it is best to provide cites for the axioms I plan on using in a debate. It is important to note that the brain is not simply a passive agent which stores data. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Yes, the world does alter our perceptions. During development, the brain is quite plastic in its ability to organise itself. For example, if a creature is raised in an environment full of vertical lines, and void of horizontal lines, then the creature will show poor sensitivity to horizontal line stimuli (and great sensitivity to vertical line stimuli). However, this says nothing about language determining thought. This is unsurprising, as I specifically said “the world we find ourselves in often directly influences our perception.” My sentence does not menton language. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Yes, if you show an ambiguous figure, and then assign a category to it, then the figure will tend to be remembered as belonging to that category. This is uncontroversial. I wasn’t aware it would be controversial as it’s pretty clear that the experiment really did take place. But the implications are important. Given a very clear figure, one of two circles joined by a line, people will actually draw it differently based on the label it is given. This implies that the labels we use affect recall and/or presentation. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > You seem to be missing the main point of Berlin & Kay’s (1969) work, namely that perception massively influences the formation of colour language and not vice versa. In other words, the structure of our visual system lends itself to certain natural divisions of colour space by colour terms: This is, unfortunately, a false dichotomy. There is no reason to suspect that both cannot be true. Of course Reality informs reality, and our reality in turn conditions our perception of Reality. After all, if language did not affect perception of color, grue languages could easily distinguish between green and blue. They cannot. (yes yes, if you force them to choose between two items they will perceive that they are of different wavelengths. But if given a bunch of colors, they will tell you that blue and green are the same color.) > [@Boldface Type](#): > > “…visual physiology plays a role in the evolutionary development of basic color vocabularies, constraining the possible composite categories to a small number of those theoretically possible.” (Kay et al., 1991; J Ling Anthrop 1: 12-25). I fail to see how this invalidates the fact that differences in these categories affect perception. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > In this respect, there are exactly 11 ‘basic’ colour terms that exist in any ‘fully developed’ human language And the languages with two color categories, whose speakers can only clearly identify those two categories? They may not be ‘fully developed’, but that only goes to prove my point. Based upon the ‘development’ of a language, perception is in greater or lesser accord with Reality. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > “…thinking does not require language, rather language facilitates thinking”. I do not know if we can ‘objectively’ go that far, but we are certainly not slaves to language. It is not beyond the pale to suppose that the manner in which language facilitates thought has an impact. This is, in fact, in accord with the weak S/W/K. It is also in accord with studies which have shown a perceptual difference in speakers of different languages, which I have cited in my OP. Again, the weak S/W/K does not posit or require that we are slaves to language, merely that there is an interplay between langauge and thought. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Naming can - and does - affect categorical tasks. Again, language cannot influence what happens at the level of our sensory transducers. Language can influence how we code or store information, once it has been received. Luckily enough, this is my claim. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > However, (colour) language only affects performance on tasks that require categorisation. Unsurprising, as dealing with two items would fall under G. Spencer Brown’s _Laws of Form_. Categorical perception, however, includes ‘classes’ of objects and phenomena. The implications seem obvious to me. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > In this respect, typically members of two different groups (e.g., cultures) will have the same performance on colour discrimination - i.e., non-categorical - tasks. However, when the task is made categorical (i.e., by including colour naming), then we do see effects of categorisation on perceptual distances (see Kay & Kempton, 1984; Am Anthrop 86: 65-79). However, when categorisation is not allowed, then the performance of groups that have different colour language becomes identical. In other words, colour language does not immutably alter perception, because the distortions imposed by colour language can be removed when colour naming is removed as an experimental strategy. No, this shows that color naming directly influences categorical perception. Categorical perception is, obviously, perception. It also goes towards the reality which we abstract. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Again your second use of ‘discrimination’ is not correct here. Additionally, discrimination and perception are not freely interchangable. The cite used that, I did not. In addition, in the case they are discussing, perception and discrimination can indeed be used interchangably, as they’re talking about categorical color perception. The ability to discriminate between different color categories is the ability to perceive them. Which is to say, if you cannot discriminate between them, you cannot perceive a difference. If you can perceive a difference, you can discriminate between them. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Second, Lucy & Schweder’s paper has some technical problems, namely that they confound the discriminability of a stimulus set with the colour terms used to identify members within that set. This argument is noted in Kay & Kempton (1984; Am Anthrop 86: 65-79, p.67). In summary, one can produce colour sets where the ‘focal’ colours are not easiest to describe. However, this says almost nothing about categorical colour perception per se, and nothing about the ‘primacy’ of focal colours. I would appreciate it if you would comment on the specific methodology that you see as a technical problem. What actions in space/time did the researchers undertake that you have an objection to? How, exactly, did they “…confound the discriminability…”? > [@Boldface Type](#): > > It’s very important to make the distinction between discriminability of colours and categorisation of colours - the two are not the same. In all situations, no. But if you cannot discriminate a difference between different color categories, well… then you can’t discriminate a difference. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > For example, standard visual search tasks are entirely unaffected by colour language or categories (e.g., Carter & Carter, 1982; Appl Opt 21: 2936 - 2939; Smallman & Boynton, 1993; Displays 14:158-165). It is only when searches are forced to be categorical that the effects of language are seen (Guest & Van Laar, 2002; Perception 31: 445-461). Again, this is an example of language not immutably influencing perception. Again, luckily enough this is in perfect accord with the weak S/W/K. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > And this last sentence is critical; language does not immutably alter (colour) perception, because the perceptual ‘distortions’ caused by language can be experimentally removed, as Kay & Kempton (1984) indeed did (their Expt #2). Again… this is in accord with the weak S/W/K. And, again, categorization, that is, the perception of different categories of color, is directly affected by language. That they can create situations where the question is “Are these two things the same?” does not speak to categorization. I’ll get to other posts tomorrow, I’m tired. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/32 "2005-03-08T07:37:00Z")
If language had a history greater than technology, I think your question would have a very strong applicability to the journey of the human race into the future of Reality. But I don’t think that is the case. Even non language using mammals do use tools for making tools. So, it becomes evident that some perception and manipulation of Reality is possible without language at all. Your question becomes even more indeterminate when we consider that after the development of communication between individuals, the ability of language to alter the behavior of other humans and the consensus of our shared reality very rapidly outstripped it’s importance in perception of Reality vs. reality. Or to speak more bluntly, If I can convince you that your welfare is dependent on feeding me, it matters much less how much food is available. The actual “truth” value of my reality, compared to yours, or even Reality is pretty much trivial in comparison to the effect my language has on your behavior, and vice versa. Relentlessly describing Reality in terms that are chosen to predict my desired outcome may seem absurd in terms of the logical physical world of Reality. But in human terms, prediction of behaviors I want to become Reality, is a very effective way of making them happen. So, in many aspects seeking a high level of detailed conformity between reality and Reality may be a self imposed restriction, and highly unfavorable to the survival of my progeny. Then there is the question of whether such considerations are necessarily my most desirable goal at all. If I decide on goals outside of the seemingly imperative motivation of survival, my methods, and my map are open to very unfamiliar aspects of reality, and perhaps Reality as well. Being accurate, being truthful, and being right are all concepts that have uses, but they are not the only sieve through which we might winnow Reality. ESP is unproven. Yet we have language that describes it. There is probably more written about it than about quantum spin states or dendrologic disease vectors. It has at its core a fundamental recognition of the very point you are jumping off from. “I don’t know what you think.” If I had ESP, maybe I would. Or, maybe I would just think more like you. And then, If we taught everyone ESP, maybe we would all think the same. The absence of perfect consensus is not inherently a lesser state of fitness. Different realities allow different solutions to problems in Reality. Perception of Reality might just be another example of beneficial diversity among living things. ## Tris “There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.” ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero ~ ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/33 "2005-03-08T11:11:31Z")
The colour/category issue is very complex with a lot of things going on and it’s easy to confuse different phases of what’s happening. I think it would be useful to separate some of them. 1. Objects in an environment reflect anything between no and all wavelengths of the light that shines on them. 2. Human eyes catch light and its reflections through a lense which projects this light onto the retina 3. The retina contains rods and cones that convert this light into pulses sent to the brain through the optic nerve. Rods are sensitive to light differences only. Cones come in three varieties, sensitive to red, green, and blue. 4. The brain receives the signals for red, green and blue through the optic nerve. In terms of color, there are a few other important things going on. One of them is best described here: > [@regentsprep.org](#): > > A chemical reaction is actually responsible for making the shift as the amount of light changes between the rods or cones being active. Waiting for this chemical reaction to occur is what we are doing when we let our eyes “adjust” as we go from light to dark, or dark to light. Red light by itself will actually not interfere with this chemical reaction. That’s why red lights are used in low light settings because they will not cause the chemical reaction which prevent the rods from working. Red lights will not ruin your night vision. [http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys09/ceyes/sensing.htm](http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys09/ceyes/sensing.htm) Knowledge like this is fairly common, but it is very important to keep this in mind when determining reality from Reality, and how Reality helps shape reality. When we discuss distinguishing different colors, it is very important to know that basically everyone is equally capable of receiving the information from the millions of nerves linked to the cones and rods in the retina. Because there are so many, we can pretty much all see a smooth transition from one color to the next, as well as observe smooth transitions between intensities, just as a TV or computer screen can produce millions of colors by combining the light from red, green and blue, so can we in our minds. However, we also all develop preferences for distinguishing colors as well as shades. This happens in the part of the brain that receives the information from these millions of nerves transferring the information of the cones and rods. What shades we distinguish depends on our life. Just like the well-known example of the Eskimo with its many different words for snow (or the Englishman for rain), the importance of color and certain colors in the environment that humans live shape the categories that we wish to use. If being able to distinguish between two different types of snake, one edible, one poisonous, depends solely on a slight difference in color, one slightly more blue and the other slightly more green, then you can be sure that humans will learn to distinguish between the two and probably assign them different names. The same happens with painters or people in the fashion industry, or a particularly interesting example also the car industry with its many, many different color names for the types of color a certain car can be bought in. Any theory involving colors that does not take the above into account runs great risk of losing its grip on Reality. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/34 "2005-03-08T18:10:12Z")
I’ve got to run to class now, but I just wanted to voice agreement with you **Arwin**. There are indeed biological and physical issues at work and the basic human ability to take in stimuli is pretty much the same in everybody. However, I don’t think perception really ends when you see something. If there is a process which goes on that includes categorization, identification, and the determination of ‘essence’, then perception can not truly be said to be isolated from cognition, at least not as I see it. In other words, I would posit that there is a difference beween seeing, and perception. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/35 "2005-03-08T21:50:34Z")
To be entered into evidence (and complicate the division between sight and perception) [Saccades and change blindness](http://eyelab.msu.edu/documents/pick/PickTech4b.pdf) As an example: Person A is the informant who will be asked a question Person B is the interrogator who will ask a question Persons C and D are carrying a large sheet of glass/ a large picture, what have you. Now, if person A is asked for directions by person B, person A will give directions. While person A is speaking, persons C and D walk behind person B, carrying their large picture. However, while person A is still talking, person C and person B switch places with person B grabbing hold of the picture and walking away. Person A, in most circumstances, does not even notice the shift, and will go on talking to person C as if he was person B. Sometimes, even though the image is on the retina and received by the brain, humans are unable to tell two different objects/pitures from each other. (See also O’Regan’s work, the conclusions of which I disagree with, but the data of which is sound) ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/36 "2005-03-09T00:31:46Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’ve got to run to class now, but I just wanted to voice agreement with you **Arwin**. There are indeed biological and physical issues at work and the basic human ability to take in stimuli is pretty much the same in everybody. However, I don’t think perception really ends when you see something. If there is a process which goes on that includes categorization, identification, and the determination of ‘essence’, then perception can not truly be said to be isolated from cognition, at least not as I see it. No disagreement here. But I just wanted to make sure that a discussion of categorization and identification includes a firm understanding of the groundwork, to help avoid some of the more silly discussions that I’ve seen in this thread. 😉 > [@](#): > > In other words, I would posit that there is a difference beween seeing, and perception. Except where seeing is believing. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Boldface\_Type](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5e925/32.png) [@Boldface\_Type](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boldface_Type)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/37 "2005-03-09T03:04:43Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > 1. Objects in an environment reflect anything between no and all wavelengths of the light that shines on them. I’m not really sure why you’re listing (not quite correctly) these things. Anyhow, objects can be incandescent, so point (1) ain’t exactly right. > [@](#): > > 1. Human eyes catch light and its reflections through a lense which projects this light onto the retina This is correct, basically, but the eye does not ‘know’ whether light is reflected or not - it’s still light. > [@](#): > > 1. The retina contains rods and cones that convert this light into pulses sent to the brain through the optic nerve. Rods are sensitive to light differences only. Cones come in three varieties, sensitive to red, green, and blue. Not really. Rods are differentially sensitive across the spectrum, however they do not encode (or contribute to the encoding of) colour. The quote you provided actually says this. Although cones are commonly called red, green and blue, their individual peak responses do not fall at wavelengths that are subjectively a (focal) red, green or blue. This is because… > [@](#): > > 1. The brain receives the signals for red, green and blue through the optic nerve. …the brain does not receive signals for red, green and blue at all. Instead The signals are opponent channels of (R vs G) and (Y vs B) and luminance. These are formed from the combination of cone signals at the level of the retina. > [@](#): > > However, we also all develop preferences for distinguishing colors as well as shades. This happens in the part of the brain that receives the information from these millions of nerves transferring the information of the cones and rods. This is so vague that I cannot even tell if you are wrong, or not. Do you mean that colour preference is expressed in the early brain regions in the visual system (e.g., thalamus)?? Or what? > [@](#): > > What shades we distinguish depends on our life. Just like the well-known example of the Eskimo with its many different words for snow (or the Englishman for rain), the importance of color and certain colors in the environment that humans live shape the categories that we wish to use. If being able to distinguish between two different types of snake, one edible, one poisonous, depends solely on a slight difference in color, one slightly more blue and the other slightly more green, then you can be sure that humans will learn to distinguish between the two and probably assign them different names. Again, we have a confusion between discrimination (the ability to distinguish between, in this case, colours. This is typically determined using criterion-free methods) and categorical perception. The many cites I provided earlier indicate that criterion-free discrimination is unaffected by the categories in which colours are ‘naturally’ placed. It is only when categorical judgments are required that you see the types of effects you allude to above. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/38 "2005-03-09T04:00:51Z")
> [@boldface Type](#): > > I will assume then that you do not think that the holographic model of the ‘mind’ explains parapsychological phenomena and similar extreme views. Well, this is probably tangential, at best, to the scope of this thread, but I might as well say something. First, I don’t know what a ‘parapsychological’ phenomena is, or would be. I do know that quantum entanglement and nonlocality suggest that Reality may be much different then the realities we abstract. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.”; he thought QM was wrong because it produced results which were virtually unbelievable, but QM was not wrong. The fact that, for example, a single photon can produce an interference pattern with itself in the experiment with two slits, that entangled particles somehow remain in contact via some faster than light mechanism, etc… The more we learn about Reality, the more it seems that it may very well be wider than imagined previously. Whether this leaves the door open for ‘parapsychological’ functions or not, I do not know. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > You have the cites I have provided, and you have access to a library or online journals. Yes, but it would be very nice if you’d provide a few URL’s amongst your cites, so I can see the text you’re quoting from without logging into another server and digging through their archives. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Plus, if you have not already read most of the cites I gave (the categorical colour perception cites, anyway) then you are not well informed on the topic at hand. Your attempt at creating a cannon of literature notwithstanding, I don’t remember most papers by their author/titles. I see so many journal articles pass through my laptop and my printer that I could puke PDF’s. I’m not sure what information you are referring to, if I’ve seen it summarized in other paper/book, if I’ve had it lectured on, if it was in a handout, etc… > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Some of the links you provided actually summarise some of the catgeorical colour perception stuff, although your interpretations seem a little shaky (e.g., in reference to Lucy & Schweder’s experiment). Please explain, _exactly_ how I am wrong or shaky. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > Also, it’s often not a good idea to trust in web summaries of research - far better to go back to the source, time and energy permitting. Agreed, but I see no real difference between web summaries and the standard lit review that goes into virtually every journal article. Citation, quotation, and summarization are part and parcel of writing a text that includes contemporary research. If my cites have somehow gotten their interpretations wrong, and you see exactly how, I would appreciate if you would tell me so I can clear up my ignorance. > [@Boldface Type](#): > > If you do not have the time or energy to go back to source then that’s understandable. However, many of these cites are cornerstones of categorical colour perception. I was unaware that the cornerstone committee had met and voted already. Would new research, some of which I’ve presented and which apparently (at least from what you’ve suggested) contradicts old research… would that be somehow less valuable? > [@Boldface Type](#): > > I can summarise any of these cites if you have specific questions, but it’s better for you to read them yourself, I think. Yes, but we’re online, so it’d be better if you provided links so I could read them myself. After that, it would be better if you could tell me what exactly you see as being wrong, rather than explaining that certain authors have published papers which don’t jive with what I’m saying. After that, the least good thing is for you to suggest that authors have contradicted my points, and tell me to go look them up myself. So, I suppose my only specific question is “What are your specific objections?” ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/39 "2005-03-09T04:02:03Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > My personal belief, and one of my contentions in this thread, is that by being aware of categorical perception and having consciousness-of-abstracting will lead us to the realization that categories are simply linguistic fictions, and not necessarily reflective of Reality. As such, I believe that self-inflicted destruction on a ‘national’ level, (eg. war) would be much less likely. In what way? I assume you have no direct idea about what Reality might look like. How then can you claim to have any idea about what comprehension of it might lead to? Also, increased knowledge has never been the key to peace and harmony. People will still be jerkish, still have egos, etc etc etc [insert human “failing” here] regardless of the language/perception they use to describe their world. **Triskadecamus** , great post. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331/40 "2005-03-09T04:06:32Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Except where seeing is believing. 😉 And where believing is seeing 😉 I wonder about the example of change blindness… what exactly is at work there? Obviously the images on your retina will be produced by the light bouncing off what you’re viewing. Equally obvious is that two different images should not be viewed as the same image. And yet, the brain ‘does not notice’ (on a conscious level, perhaps?) these changes. I would posit that it is because the brain uses certain ‘perceptual shortcuts’, habits and patterns of recognition. Evolutionary relative successes in the sphere of an organism’s life, so to speak. So, the question in my mind becomes one of whether or not we are even able to alter certian behaviors/perceptions/ideas which have a sole, or substantial, biological component. If we are able to, what tools would it require? As for aspects of our realities which are affected by non-solely-biological forces such as language, what about them? Is it, perhaps, enough to train new students to be conscious of abstracting, or is something more radical required? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/towards-a-unified-theory-of-perception-cognition-language-reality-and-realities/293331.md?page=3)