>…. ''Sense perception is sense deception'' - Rene Descartes…

This is interesting!

I think we have a way of perceiving nature that is encoded in our minds already, like pre-programmed. That is why we see the world around us how we see it, everything is seen in certain patterns. It could even be why the world can be described mathematically.

I think memory and focus play a big role in perception.

When we look at a picture, our perception of the image depends on whether we have seen it before or not. The image translates into something we process in our mind, where a memory bank of things we have perceived before is stored. Also, If our view (of a wider picture) is limited then our eyes will focus on a detail of that image and so our perception could be different than if we see a wider picture. For example looking at the water from a picture of an ocean with seagulls flying in the background will be perceived differently than looking at the same spot of water but without the seagulls. The combinations of things change the perception of something.

(The image below is by Berkowitz Photography)

This one is from a frame of a video :)

@Layal Hakim:..perceiving nature that is encoded in our minds already, like pre-programmed.

This raise the question: What about perceiving nature at a very early age, before very much (if anything) is encoded in our minds?

@Layal Hakim:

If possible, please send the image file for the butterfly from Berkowitz Pholography.

Also, do you have the email address for the source of the image? I would like to consider using the image in an edge detection experiment in my book on a Topology of

Digital Images.

In my opinion...

The brain is like a pre-programmed piece of kit that we have which relies on memory and experience. So, even at a very young age, it already recognises patterns and realises effects. Most of which are developed over time. For example a new-born baby wouldn't know that ‘’fire means hot’’ but a toddler would because he/she would have stored that bit of information in his/her memory already. However, a new-born baby’s brain has no memory or associations but, through senses, it develops a certain way of reacting to the codes and patterns of the world around it.

The fact is that perception can lead to making associations. If Mowgli from The Jungle Book didn't have anyone around him to talk to, he would still know that ‘’flower means pretty’’ because of the patterns and colours which his mind perceives. Human consciousness functions in a certain way. Mathematical concepts like geometry and numbers are part of this instinctive way of perceiving the world. Something like Euclidean-geometry is innately in us because we've perceived the world like that for many years.

Animals are pre-programmed too, they are based on instinct. Just like a leopard chasing its prey knows exactly when to start running, when to accelerate, when to slow down… All so that it can arrive exactly at the right point and catch its prey. Surely leopards don’t know the kinematic equations of motion but they are just intrinsically aware like all other animals. Plants are also pre-programmed: they know what to do to get photosynthesis and how to shed their seeds in the best way possible to reproduce.

Yes sure :)

The image was taken from

http://www.berkowitzphotography.com/?page_id=325

((website accessed 11/09/2013))

I don't have an email, address for Berkowitz Photography, but you may contact them using

http://www.berkowitzphotography.com/?page_id=31

@Layal Hakim: The brain is like a pre-programmed piece of kit that we have which relies on memory and experience. ...

I would "and perception of patterns garnered from incoming signals from various senses and pattern recognition.

Picture is an external manifestation that catches our attention wanting to be analysed.

Perception on the other hand is an internal mechanism that does the analysis and depending on the experience of the cognitive module leads to pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition for proper discerning dwells on the memory substance that has been built in from experiences. This is why visualization is a very useful apparatus in learning and why learning has to be precepts upon precepts. Modules that encompasses all experiences related to a concept lead to quick perception and fast pattern recognition.

@Moses Oyesanya: ...visualization is a very useful apparatus in learning...

Yes, agreed. It is helpful if visualisaton of an idea or a pattern that we perceive captures the structure of a perceived pattern. Taking your idea a step further, it also helpful if a visualisation shows pattern growth (over time, good patterns tend to be enhanced and, as it were, "grow"), patterns that are similar (similar signal amplitudes, similar geometries, similar structures), and dissimiliarites in patterns.

Sometimes, pattern dissimilaries reveal more than pattern similarities. For example, consider the dissimilarities in the texture patterns of the sandy surface images from NASA vs. the texture images of the Sahara desert.

Here is a concise view of visual patterns (pictures) that one perceives:

learning to recognize a pattern is the process of constructing an internal representation of the pattern in memory and that recognizing a pattern is the process of finding in

memory an internal representation which matches the pattern. This general assumption is widely accepted; disagreement centers rather on the exact nature of the internal

representation and of the process of finding and matching. Here it is proposed that each pattern is represented in memory as a network of memory traces, recording the

features of the pattern and the attention shifts required to pass from feature to feature across the visual field.

D. Noton, A theory of visual pattern perception, IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cybernetics, SSC-6 (4), 1970, p. 349ff.

The question for those following this thread is this: Does Noton's view of visual pattern perception square well with current views on perception of pictures from nature. When we perceive a picture from nature are we actually perceiving a visual pattern?

‘’ When we perceive a picture from nature are we actually perceiving a visual pattern?’’

I think so, yes. But the way we perceive the picture is the beauty.

Everything is a pattern, which can be interpreted geometrically.

I think Noton’s point of memory is very important too. We interpret pictures we see depending on our memory and our study of that picture and what we've learnt in the past (in general). Perception of pictures also depends on personality. People have different personalities so different people perceive pictures in different ways. So when you look at something pretty like a flower how you interpret that picture would vary from person to person.

Noton also speaks of seeing pictures in the presence of Noise and clutter. I think that the brain registers details of pictures better in the absence of noise. When senses are working together, each sense works less efficiently than when working alone. However, noise also affects the mood. For example, listening to classical music is relaxing. Looking at a picture while listening to classical music will lead to a different perception than in the case when there is noise and clutter in the background.

If we avoid the clutter in the background (be it noise or objects in the background), then our brain stores more details of pictures of nature we see.

Dear James,

Interesting topic

Painting of the attached file picture I COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FROM A PHOTO] I found dificulty in drawing the figure of the small boat. After some trials I had to thinK that something was wrong with my perception of this figure. Finally after analysing more carefully the original picture I thought of its geometry and came to the conclusion that I had to draw an elipse .

Regards from Athens,

Panagiotis Stefanides

http://www.stefanides.gr

That's a beautiful picture. I really love the background too.

The small boat is tilted so maybe that's why it is more difficult to draw.

I would guess that drawing something becomes easier if the object is standing upright, maybe because the one who is drawing will be sitting/standing upright when drawing.

I wonder...do you think it will be easier to draw the tilted boat if we are sitting in a ''tilted'' position? Would we see the patterns in a different point of view? :)

Dear Layal,

I thank you for your interesting comments.

PossiblyI shall try your suggestions when I face a simillar problem.

As I mentioned, I solved it by simply drawing an elipse on the plane.

From my attached, here, photo you may see that the line joining bows to stern [ parallel to the keel] is almost vertical to the picture frame, whereas the big axis of the elipse is at an angle to this line at about 45 degrees with the vertical.

''Sense perception is sense deception'' - Rene Descartes

If we apply this to things we see in nature, why might this quote be true?

perceiving pictures of nature is subjective because it depends on personal experience. So, we could be deceived when looking at a picture because perception is an interpretation of what is going on in association with what you have experienced in the past that's why it could be deceiving.

Does anyone have any other views on this quote in relation to nature?

Dear Panagiotis,

Put a copy of the drawing you have made next to the photo, i.e., put the photo and drawing side-by-side. Then we will be able make comparisons between the photo and drawing.

Dear Layal,

Descartes does have problems with sense perception. In fact, he is a sense sceptice without the saving grace of science and mathematics. It is possible to prepare a template (similar to Panagiotis's drawings relative to a photo) and use the template to perceive similiar structures or patterns derived from sensed signals (from nature and cameras and other signal sources). To classify a perceived pattern, we can try computing the similarity distance between what perceive and a template representing a class of images or objects.

Dear James, My photos side by side.

Photo painting copied from:

HEMPEL 1975 [ Calendar November].

The schooner-rigged paddle-steamer "Artieet Amicitiae" and Duch inshore fishing boat.

In contrast to copying I attach my aconceptual geometrical drawing:

"Anagenesis" [ Regeneration ]

>…. ''Sense perception is sense deception'' - Rene Descartes…

Hello

Please note that you are all talking about realistic pictures, therefore inherently related to nature and produced through the means of the senses. The problem with these sensory or instrumental based pictures is that they reduce what is, what we can sense drastically, ignoring an entire other realm.

'Imaging' is another way of making images, which can be unrelated to physical nature or human nature. I am talking for example of topology.

Spinoza spoke of ideas that were 'inadequate', not representing situations adequately, situations that cannot be reduced to the physical or human realms. Adequate ideas can be experssed iwth a simple form of topology or a 'geometry of mind' as Husserl said. I use those in my theoretical work. Theoretical physicists use them too.

\

Panagiotis,

what you describe is called, in intellectual terms, having a perspective,

All representation are 'in perspective', whether realistic to the senses like the statue, or 'true' to the mind and all its filters. They are RE-presentations, The imaging I describe gives a 'likeness' of a situation as it actually is. I remember seeing the term used in a piece of christian text that was excluded from the bible. this kind of 'likeness' also exists in language and in gesture.

In other words, our physicalisations and anthropomorphisms distort what we describe. It's useful in the art. Not so much to describe how human life works. It hides many things otherwise obvious (if we take off the sensory and mental filters). In medicine and science, ti can be very damaging to all whose lives are ruled by the ideas coming from these fields.

Dear Panagiotis,

Your geometric representation of a painting is both profound and insightful. You also write:

The simulacrum has long been of interest to philosophers. In his Sophist, Plato speaks of two kinds of image-making. The first is a faithful reproduction, attempted to copy precisely the original. The second is distorted intentionally in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers.

In effect, the simulacrum is part of a sequence of extensions of a priomordial perception of a pattern in nature, i.e.,

nature -> sensed signals ->

perceived pattern ->

painting ->

photo of painting ->

geometric representation of what is observed.

A perceive pattern can not only be a picture (some from of art or photo) but also a philosophic obervation such as the similacrum or, for example, an axiom leading to a topologic view of patterns.

Dear James,

I thank you.

Possibly I may have something to write on your last statement.

Regards

The attached work was conceived while wolking in the street.

Admittedly I had in mind the involved Special Orthogonal Triangle [as such only].

Next I shall give a file of the relevant book : book 1997.

[My recent book [2010] has related work to this [http://www.stefanides.gr/pdf/BOOK%20_GRSOGF.pdf ].

Book 1997.

This is a very nice and interesting discussion.

In regards to the original question, perception is coupled to our senses, which can be considered probe functions. Change or restrict these probe functions, and our perception of an object, event, or environment changes. As has been mentioned, memory can record patterns about our environment gleaned from our senses. However, memory acts as an internal representation of the patterns obtained from our senses, not an exact recording (we do not have enough storage or are not wired this way :). For instance, I can remember that I find a specific type of food pleasurable because I like the stimulus sensed by my taste and touch probe functions, but I cannot remember the total output produced when consuming this food (i.e. I cannot recreate the sensation of eating a slice of pizza via memory). Along these lines, a photo presents a restricted set of stimuli, aimed at only one sense, and very limited compared with what is ordinarily presented to our sense of sight. Thus, it acts as a visual representation akin, but different from memory. From it, we can extract patterns sufficient to perform recognition, but far removed from using our senses at the scene. For example, as in recalling a photo appears to capture a place visited in childhood, yet is completely deficient to visiting the same location and experiencing the place with all one’s senses.

Chris,

Your observations are cogent and very interesting.

Can you give examples of photos that either near patterns obtained via our senses vs. photos that are far removed from sensed patterns?

James:

near patterns: a photo in broad day light. Trees are green

removed patterns: a photo at dusk or dawn: we 'see' green trees, but they actually are grey (photo or direct vision).

Another note:

Considering sensory perception as a probing of mind or senses 'into' environment is an Eastern concept (transfered to computer-like thinking I imagine), and shutting down mind & perception is one of the processes of meditation. In Western science 'stimuli come from' environment and reach our senses and brain, where mind interprets them, and so it's my 'fault' if I see dying land instead of 'beautiful rugged landscape'. Does that make any difference to your theorising ideas about perception?

Either way, the 'Nature' that we perceive is not what actually is, it is not sensed 'directly' using the senses. Does your theorising take into account any other mode of 'sensing' not involving pictorial re-presentations (realistic to senses, true to the mind)? One researcher called these representations 'imagistic', by opposition to viewing without the interpretation-probing and therefore without the physicalising and anthropomorphising of 'Nature'.

Marika,

Excellent post! Your observations about near patterns are important. Until you mentioned it, I had not thought about near patterns relative to the time of day. So, based on what you have observed, we the following scenarios:

colour: near green tree patterns in the morning -> not near tree pattern at dusk

shape: near tree patterns (morning) -> near tree patterns (dusk)

In other words, perceived colours change, depending on the sun cycle, but

the perceived shapes persist (are near each morning and at sunset time).

Do you have a couple of photos (to post) to illustrate your observations?

no, not photos on hand about that. I'll try making some.

I learned this years ago from a course on colour for painting, and developed more my observation skills.

Shape can be deceiving too: "appearances". Most people don't see behind the cover of the book.

Corrections:

colour: near green tree patterns in the morning MID DAY-> not near tree pattern at dusk OR DAWN

shape: near tree patterns (morning) -> near tree patterns (dusk) + NOT near at mid day, when the sun 'flattens' things, especially in the tropics.

Depends also on latitude,= height of sun and atmospheric thickness/ fog/dust/smoke

Perception was an important topic in Greek antiquity, is a great metaphor for mind filters, and a topic in practices of meditation.

How do we see what actually is?

Marika,

Great! You refinements of what I wrote earlier about near colours and shapes are excellent as well as interesting.

Many thanks for checking into illustrative photos.

Do you see any applications of near set theory in topologic ecology?

This is becoming even more interesting :)

I think it's not just the perceived colours that change with darkness but also the shape. Sometimes you can see that something is there but you don't know what it is... unless you know (memory) that it is there.

Details of objects in nature are less visible in the dark. This affects the shape which is why we might not get an exact representation of it. The object doesn't change in the dark of course :) just our perception of it.

In the dark, a cactus could look like a person wanting to hug you ... ouch.

Layal,

Shapes persist in the changing light, colours do not.

And shapes looking like a person wanting to hug you--wonderful! :-)

Mumford wrote "Since we see more than the reflected light recorded by a camera, a digital image supplements, not replaces, our perception."

And sometimes what the camera records is at odds with our perception. A striking example of this is the moon illusion. The size of a camera picture of the moon is the same whether the moon is at the horizon or at its zenith. In our perception, the moon is much larger at the horizon than it is at its zenith. This is explained by two characteristics of our cognitive brain, (a) the anisotropy of retinoid space -- the brain's volumetric representation of all space around us, and (b) the retinoid 's mechanism for approximating size constancy over a range of viewing distance. For example, see pp. 242 - 247 in "Illusions and Ambiguous Shapes: Epiphenomena of Brain Mechanisms" on my RG page.

Correction. Should read: "The size of the moon in a camera picture of the moon is the same whether the moon is at the horizon or at its zenith."

>..... memory can record patterns about our environment gleaned from our senses. However, memory acts as an internal representation of the patterns obtained from our senses, not an exact recording ...

@Panagiotis, many thanks for the lovely example, it serves very nicely.

I agree with Marika, we do not see the world in its entirety. Instead, we are restricted to interpreting our environment though the use of our senses. For instance, one could consider how a prairie dog is red/green colour blind, or how certain fish cannot perceive longer light wavelengths such as green, blue, or violet. Each perceives its environment much different than us. All species (including humans) form approximations of the environment seen through lenses defined by biological probe functions developed through evolution.

James, your request for examples of photos that contain either near patterns obtained via our senses or photos that are far removed from sensed patterns is very interesting. I believe we need to find a common framework before such a search can begin. For instance, typical approaches for assessing similarity in images involves exacting features (via probe functions), and creating feature value vectors. Thus, the search for similarity moves to feature space, and then popular approaches consist of partitioning this space or finding clusters; as in pattern classification or object recognition, using NN, SVM, or kNN; or near set theory, using tolerance classes and a nearness measure. On the other hand, humans have the cognitive capability that allows us to learn and think about how to perceive our environment autonomously (which consists of linking the processes of perception, action, and learning) [1]. Notice, that all approaches are dependent on the selection of features (i.e. the probe functions which define the available perceptual information and allow us to extract patterns of interest). The search for the images you mentioned lie somewhere in between these two approaches. I will think on some examples.

[1] Y. Yu, et al., “A Goal-Directed Visual Perception System Using Object-Based Top-Down Attention,” IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 87-103, 2012.

@Christopher:

Yu writes

In cognitive science, perception can be modeled

as a process of not only passively receiving the sensory

input (i.e., a bottom–up process), but also being guided by

learning, memory and expectation (i.e., a top–down process).

This form of perception appears to work well for a computer vision system. From what Yu has written, we might wonder whether Yu's view of perception offers some insight into human perception, which can be simpler or more complex that Yu's model.

Pictures that contain drawings tend to reveal how one sees the world perceptually. The drawing by Panagiotis suggests that perception works with incomplete, outlines of objects in a visual field. That is, a drawing offers a distilled view of perception.

By contrast, Yu's view of perception reflects a whole-bodied view of the world. And that view works well for computer vision (transforming the sensed signals into some form of object-based attention. But it has been pointed out in another post that camera images are quite different from perceived images.

Here is another aspect of pictures for followers of this thread to consider:

The Fallacy of Comparing a Retinal Image to a Picture. We

can now clear up a misunderstanding which has persisted for

centuries: the notion that a retinal image is like a picture.

However a picture may be defined, everyone would agree that

it is something to be looked at by an observer. A retinal image

is not something to be looked at by an observer. It is therefore

profoundly unlike a picture. There is a distribution of energy

on a sensory mosaic, but it is not a replica, or a copy, or a model,

or a record. It is a continuous "input," as computer theorists

say. It starts impulses in the optic nerve. The retinal image is

easily visualized, but one should do so only at one's peril, for

it encourages the fallacy of assuming a little man in the brain

who looks at the retinal image. Whenever one is tempted to

think in this way, one should remember the eye of the bee. A

retinal image is no more like a picture in the eye than an audi

tory stimulus is like a phonograph record in the ear.

See attached pdf file:

James,

What do you make of the SMTT hallucination described in the attachment below?

Through this research we come to the conclusion that: if the ultimate minimum, apart from being a concept, is an entity as well and its segmentation is impossible, then the existence of the visual artists’ world as well as our natural world is inevitable.

... The minimum space-time for a visual artist is the minimum route crossed in minimum space and time, in a certain direction, the minimum light energy quantity. It is presupposed that any visual artist’s space-time is an autonomous entity that reserves properties acquired by analogue superposition. 

GEOMETRIC REPRESENTATION OF SPACE

1.    If π is not only a numerical constant but also a significant rational ratio that takes the value πΓ=3,14160156250565754150390625 and with which Nature creates things.

2.    It gives a visual art and geometric approach to the question “How does nature, using ultimate minimum non-divided rotatable quantities compose iterated concentric circle planes with a rational ratio? ”These circle planes along with their corresponding squares create our three-dimensional world which produces many visual art situations and systems.

http://atmito.net/apps/grs_en.php

Data | ATMITO | A visual art approach to the squaring of the circ...

Dear Arnold,

Many thanks for the interesting experiment in perception of  geometric shapes. I am reminded of the basic approach proposed by Voronoi in connecting pairs of nearest (perceived  points in the Euclidean plane).  If I were Humean I would say that your experiment demonstrates the unreliability of the senses.  However, I am not a Humean, but rather take perceived objects at their face value.

Best,

Jim

James,

Would you also take the perception of a large moon at the horizon and a small moon high in the sky at their face value?

Arnold,

Many thanks for your second interesting question. 

Usually, when I observe something interesting in a visual scene, I either make a drawing or capture what I see with a digital camera.  If the picture from the camera matches what I have seen, then I have some corroborative evidence that my perception is accurate. Otherwise not.

The Humean society at Stanford University has an experiment to demonstrate the unreliability of the senses.

Here is the experiment: 

Put a straight stick under water, and then ask a visitor to report what is observed.

The visitor would usually reply: A bent stick.

Due to refraction, the perception is correct but does match the reality.

Then the Humean takes the stick out of the water and shows that the stick is not bent.

Ironically, the Humean not only demonstrates the unreliability of the senses, the Humean also provides a model for verifying perceptions.  Namely, experiment to demonstrate the correctness or incorrectness of a perception.

James,

In the case of the stick in the water the perception is correct because of the intermediating effect of refraction. But in the case of the moon illusion the perception is incorrect. There is no intermediating physical effect to explain the perceived change in the size of the moon. It's retinal size remains at ~0.52 degrees whether at the horizon or high in the sky. It is an interesting fact that we have no sensory transducers for detecting the space in which we live. It is the particular design of the brain mechanism that gives us our experience of the volumetric world around us and the perception of its various contents that causes the moon illusion. This is explained in my retinoid model of consciousness.

Arnold,

I am away from my computer until July 6.  I will respond when I return.

Dear Ioannis,

>..

5. For transformations, this program uses the following formulas:

 From circle to square:

R! = R1 "

R1 # st

8

where R1 the initial radius value given by the user, RE the

calculated radius of each next circle and st the constant used for

the construction of the above geometric figure of space crosssection,

st = 0,91017454375 .

 From square to circle:

aE

2

=

a1

2

!

a1 " st

16

where a1 the initial square side given by the user and aE the

calculated side of each next square.,,,

@Arnold: ...It is the particular design of the brain mechanism that gives us our experience of the volumetric world around us and the perception of its various contents that causes the moon illusion. This is explained in my retinoid model of consciousness.

Please send me a link or the pdf file for a paper that introduces you retinoid model of consciousness.

James,

The following two links will give you a picture of the retinoid model of consciousness:

http://people.umass.edu/trehub/YCCOG828%20copy.pdf

 http://theassc.org/documents/where_am_i_redux

You might also take a look at the publications on my RG page here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arnold_Trehub/contributions/?ev=prf_act