Do Our Senses Reveal the World—Or Do They Obscure It?
Our brains didn't evolve to see the world accurately, we only perceive what is useful and apply meaning to it. Neuroscientist Beau Lotto shows us how the sausage of reality is made.
Beau Lotto is a professor of neuroscience, previously at University College London and now at the University of London, and a Visiting Scholar at New York University. His work focuses on the biological, computational and psychological mechanisms of perception. He has conducted and presented research on human and bumblebee perception and behavior for more than 25 years, and his interest in education, business and the arts has led him into entrepreneurship and engaging the public with science. In 2001, Beau founded the Lab of Misfits, a neuro-design studio that was resident for two years at London's Science Museum and most recently at Viacom in New York. The lab's experimental studio approach aims to deepen our understanding of human nature, advance personal and social well-being through research that places the public at the centre of the process of discovery, and create unique programmes of engagement that span the boundaries between people, disciplines and institutions. Originally from Seattle, with degrees from UC Berkeley and Edinburgh Medical School, he now lives in Oxford and New York.
Beau Lotto is a professor of neuroscience, previously at University College London and now at the University of London, and a Visiting Scholar at New York University.
His work focuses on the biological, computational and psychological mechanisms of perception. He has conducted and presented research on human and bumblebee perception and behavior for more than 25 years, and his interest in education, business and the arts has led him into entrepreneurship and engaging the public with science.
In 2001, Beau founded the Lab of Misfits, a neuro-design studio that was resident for two years at London's Science Museum and most recently at Viacom in New York. The lab's experimental studio approach aims to deepen our understanding of human nature, advance personal and social well-being through research that places the public at the centre of the process of discovery, and create unique programmes of engagement that span the boundaries between people, disciplines and institutions. Originally from Seattle, with degrees from UC Berkeley and Edinburgh Medical School, he now lives in Oxford and New York.
Beau Lotto: Is there an external reality? Of course there’s an external reality. The world exists. It’s just that we don’t see it. At least, we don’t see it as it is. In fact, we can never it as it is! In fact it’s even useful to not see it as it is. And the reason is because it goes back to really Berkeley, who tells us we have no direct access to that physical world other than through our senses.
And because our senses conflate multiple aspects of that world we can never know whether our perceptions are in any way accurate. And so this has always been a very deep question. It’s not so much “Do we see the world in the way it really is?” but “Do we actually even see it accurately?”. And the answer is no, we don’t.
So if we remember that the information that’s coming on to your eye or onto your skin or into your ears is inherently meaningless (because it could mean anything) then it means that we need another kind of data in order to be able to generate behaviors that are useful. And that data is necessarily historical, which means that the functional structure of your brain is really a physical manifestation of your past interactions with the world, and it’s a physical, active interaction. It’s not passive, receiving data like a Facebook broadcast, it’s an active engagement with that world.
So, for instance, if you take—there’s a well-known experiment back in the 70s where you had two kittens: recently born, eyes just open.
And you had one kitten that was effectively running on the ground, right, perfectly fine. And you had another one that was in a basket. And the one in the basket was connected to the one on the ground, which meant that wherever the one in the basket went it was because it was where the one on the ground also went. The point is that they had the same visual history of the world. Then after a period of time you test the vision of the one on the ground, and it seems fine, as you would expect. But the question is: what does the one in the basket see? And the answer is that it doesn’t see anything. It’s blind, because it’s never been able to physically engage with the sources of this meaningless information and make meaning from it. So then when you let it run around, it learns to see again.
Now sometimes it’s really difficult for people to understand that the data that your brain is receiving is meaningless, because when they open their eyes they look around and they say, “Well I see everything! What do you mean it’s meaningless?”
So a really simple example, in fact it’s possibly one of the most fundamental examples, is color. So actually if you think about what they call “Dressgate”, right—the power of that I found really remarkable, because we’re all familiar with illusions and we’re all quite happy with the idea that someone who was a French speaker has a different word, different meaning than someone who’s an English speaker.
Because we’re quite happy that things that are very cultural or in our own experience we can experience differently or we can have different concepts.
But as soon as people realize that you can have different color perceptions, that really challenged them because it means if that’s true, what does it mean for the perception of reality, right?
So color is a wonderful concept because it’s both very literal and abstract. And what’s true for color is true for everything about what we see. So take, for instance—what is the source of our perception of color? It’s light. And it’s light from 400 to 700 nanometers, which is actually a very tiny window of electromagnetic radiation. So even at that point we’re seeing a tiny window within the potential energy that we could in theory detect.
What’s more, that’s a linear scale from 400 to 700, from small to large. But our perception of color, which starts with light, is anything but simple. In fact, it’s a three-dimensional perceptual space inside our head. So, for instance, you have a brightness axis, which is intensity.
You have a saturation axis, which is how much gray is in the color: So a fire engine is very unsaturated or rather a very saturated red. And a pink is a relatively unsaturated red, it has gray in it.
And then you have hue, which is red, green, blue and yellow. What’s remarkable is that the two ends of the spectrum, the physical spectrum, say short wavelengths (which we perceive to be violet and blue) and the other end of the spectrum (which we perceive to be red) are actually perceptually more similar to each other than they are to the middle part of the spectrum, which means that our perception of color is a circle.
Which means the largest and the smallest stimuli are actually perceptually similar to each other, which is like one kilo feeling a lot like a thousand kilos and very different from five hundred kilos, right? So even at that most basic level what we’re seeing is not what’s actually even in the stimulus.
What’s more is our perception of color is categorical. You can define every color in terms of red, green, blue and yellow. And each category is defined by what we call unique hue. A perception of redness, that has no other hue in it. Whereas orange, you can perceive sort of a combination of red and yellow. But with red you only see red. Yellow you only see yellow. But there’s nothing unique about spectra. There’s nothing categorical about spectra. They’re continuous distributions, right.
So at this most basic level we don’t represent even the information we’re getting in any accurate way. And the reason is because it was useful to see it this way. So we’re seeing the utility of the data, not the data.
We know the world exists, we just don’t know what it actually looks like—and it's likely that we never will, says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. Humans can only access reality, whatever it may be, through the filter of our sensory organs, which interpret "inherently meaningless" data in ways that are useful for our survival. We don't see the world as it is, we see the world that helps us to live. It can be a concept that's hard to wrap your mind around: how is that chair not as I see it? What color is an apple, really? Lotto calls on two clarifying examples: "Dressgate", which blew people's minds in 2015 and exposed that perception is not objective, and the color spectrum, of which we only see a small slice of. Beau Lotto is the author of Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
How long should one wait until an idea like string theory, seductive as it may be, is deemed unrealistic?
- How far should we defend an idea in the face of contrarian evidence?
- Who decides when it's time to abandon an idea and deem it wrong?
- Science carries within it its seeds from ancient Greece, including certain prejudices of how reality should or shouldn't be.
Plato used the allegory of the cave to explain that what humans see and experience is not the true reality.
Credit: Gothika via Wikimedia Commons CC 4.0<p>When scientists and mathematicians use the term <em>Platonic worldview</em>, that's what they mean in general: The unbound capacity of reason to unlock the secrets of creation, one by one. Einstein, for one, was a believer, preaching the fundamental reasonableness of nature; no weird unexplainable stuff, like a god that plays dice—his tongue-in-cheek critique of the belief that the unpredictability of the quantum world was truly fundamental to nature and not just a shortcoming of our current understanding. Despite his strong belief in such underlying order, Einstein recognized the imperfection of human knowledge: "What I see of Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility." (Quoted by Dukas and Hoffmann in <em>Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives</em> (1979), 39.)</p> <p>Einstein embodies the tension between these two clashing worldviews, a tension that is still very much with us today: On the one hand, the Platonic ideology that the fundamental stuff of reality is logical and understandable to the human mind, and, on the other, the acknowledgment that our reasoning has limitations, that our tools have limitations and thus that to reach some sort of final or complete understanding of the material world is nothing but an impossible, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01K2JTGIA?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">semi-religious dream</a>.</p>
The vaccine will shorten the "shedding" time.
A physicist creates an AI algorithm that predicts natural events and may prove the simulation hypothesis.
- Princeton physicist Hong Qin creates an AI algorithm that can predict planetary orbits.
- The scientist partially based his work on the hypothesis which believes reality is a simulation.
- The algorithm is being adapted to predict behavior of plasma and can be used on other natural phenomena.
Physicist Hong Qin with images of planetary orbits and computer code.
Credit: Elle Starkman
Are we living in a simulation? | Bill Nye, Joscha Bach, Donald Hoffman | Big Think<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4dbe18924f2f42eef5669e67f405b52e"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KDcNVZjaNSU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
For democracy to prosper in the long term, we need more people to reach higher levels of education.
- It's difficult to overstate the impact of technology and artificial intelligence. Smart machines are fundamentally reshaping the economy—indeed, society as a whole.
- Seemingly overnight, they have changed our roles in the workplace, our views of democracy—even our family and personal relationships.
- In my latest book, I argue that we can—and must—rise to this challenge by developing our capacity for "human work," the work that only humans can do: thinking critically, reasoning ethically, interacting interpersonally, and serving others with empathy.
People with higher levels of education are less inclined toward authoritarian political preferences.
Credit: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce analysis of data from the World Values Survey (WVS), 1994–2014.<p>When considering human work and the future of democracy, it's impossible to avoid the rise of authoritarianism throughout the world. According to <a href="https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/authoritarianism/" target="_blank">new research</a> from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, the alarming increase of authoritarianism on a global scale can't be considered in isolation.</p><p>The postwar world order was based on the expectation in the West that democracy was spreading throughout the world, country by country, and would eventually become the preferred form of government everywhere. Foreign relations were based on the broad consensus that established democracies should be vigilant and unwavering in offering military and cultural support to emerging democracies. Democracy spread throughout Latin America and even appeared likely to take root in China. The end of the Cold War seemed to confirm the inevitability of democracy's spread, with only a few old-style authoritarian systems left in Cuba, North Korea, and other poor, isolated countries.</p><p>Today, the tide seems to be turning in the opposite direction. Authoritarianism—particularly in the form of populist nationalism—has returned to Russia and parts of Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America. China appears resolute in maintaining state control over political and cultural expression. And we now understand clearly that not even the United States and Western Europe are immune from authoritarianism's allure.</p>