Download - PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
1/21
PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
Samuel S. Franklin
California State University, Fresno , Emeritus
There is a theory in modern physics called The ManyWorlds Hypothesis. It was conceived
by Hugh Everett III when he was 28 years old at Princeton University and served as his
doctoral dissertation. It is widely recognized and embraced by some of the most renowned
physicists in the world.
Everett claimed that subatomic particles like electrons can take an almost infinite number
of paths and each has a certain probability of occurring. Once the electron or other small
particle is measured it is realized or actualized; it comes into being. But, all the other paths
it might have taken are also actualized. We may measure the particle at position A but it
went elsewhere too: to positions B and C and n. Everett proposed that it goes to all the
positions but it does so in different worlds. A wave function describes all the possible
paths of the particle and while it may be observed in one place, it goes to all the others aswell. There are many worlds each as real as the observed.
Given our penchant for Newtonian physics and our assumptions about the macro physical
world it is not easy to comprehend the many worlds hypothesis but it has a large following
of very smart physicists who understand such things.
There is still another kind ofmany worlds hypothesis that may be easier for us non-
physicists to grasp. For almost forty years I studied and taught the psychology of
perception and have recently come to a surprising (for me) conclusion. In this paper I
1
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
2/21
suggest that because our human brains differ from other animal brains the world we
perceive is probably very different from the worlds perceived by other animals. I think it is
likely that your dog and cat and the blackbird in the nearby tree all perceive very
different worlds from each other and from us. Given the variations in our brains I am
suggesting that each species has its own world. There are many worlds. There are as many
worlds as there are species.
In the following pages I will try to explain this view and discuss some of its implications.
CLASSICAL DUALISM
While the theory of many worlds is quite recent, belief in more than one world has been
with us for a long time. Plato's dualism proposed that the material world, the one that we
so trust now, is actually very untrustworthy. He left us with a wonderful story about his
dualistic universe: 'The Allegory of the Cave.'
We are asked to imagine a group of chained prisoners at the mouth of a cave. Because the
chains restrict their movements the prisoners can only see the back wall of the cave.
Behind them and off in the distance lies a mountain top where people walk holding giant
patterns in the shape of a tree or person or circle. Further out and behind the mountain top
lies the sun, low in the sky shining on the forms which in turn cast their shadows upon the
back wall of the cave. Thus, all the prisoners can see are the shadows of the forms.
However, the shadows are not truly representative of the forms. As the sun rises the
shadows become shorter and distorted and when the sun moves north or south the shapes
become further distorted. The prisoners see only likenesses that are at best
approximations to the true forms.
2
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
3/21
As the allegory continues one of the prisoners breaks loose from his chains and from the
shadows he has known and makes his way toward the distant mountain top where the true
forms reside.
Plato's story tells us that we are like the prisoners chained to the cave of the physical world
which provides only distortions of the real, true and divine forms which exist in another
nonphysical world. The shapes carried by the people upon the mountain top are not of the
physical world, they represent perfect ideas, patterns, divine forms. The circles that we
see every day are imperfect, unlike those found the transcendental world. All the oak treesthat we see are but approximations to the perfect oak tree in the other world. The world of
matter and stuff, the physical world, is full of distortions and imperfections. Divine truths
are discovered by reason, by the mind, by contemplation. Observation of matter yields
something much less.
The founders of Christianity trusted in Plato's dualism and for a thousand years
almost the whole of Europe embraced it or at least a variation of it. In those Middle Ages
between the Ancients and the Modern Era the natural world and all its contents was, for the
most part, debased and maligned. Matter was considered flawed, distorted; only shadows
of real truths which reside in a transcendental world. The objects of this world were
thought to misdirect our efforts away from the divine. Believers will be saved and
nonbelievers will suffer for all eternity. Truth lies in heaven, in scripture and in the
authority of the Church. The physical world has little to offer.
3
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
4/21
THE DAWN OF SCIENCE
Not until the Enlightenment and the Renaissance did the physical world regain prominence.
Stephen Greenblatt tells us that we owe it all to a monk named Poggio Bracciolini. In theearly 1300s Poggio found an ancient manuscript buried in a German monastery.
Lucretius's On the Nature of Things (50 BCE) glorified the natural world and poked fun
at superstitions about the gods and their supernatural power. According to Greenblatt,
Poggios re-introduction of Lucretius's naturalism began the modern world.
Other events also helped to usher in a new era. Martin Luthers challenge to the Catholic
Church weakened its hold, Guttenbergs invention of the printing press allowed alternative
views to be known, and explorations to the New World elevated the importance of goods,
riches and earthly matters. But perhaps the most important force of the new age came from
the birth of science.
Although Aristotle might correctly be identified as the founder of science it was not until
the early astronomers and physicists of the modern era that science took hold. Copernicus
(circa 1500 ) rejected the religious view that the earth was the center of the universe and
claimed that it revolved around the sun. Galileo (circa 1600 ) supported that idea and got
excommunicated for it. Isaac Newton (circa 1675) set down the laws that govern the
physical world and provided a handbook that guides our lives even today.
Essential to the Newtonian world view was the importance of observation. No longer
should we accept religious authority without proof. No longer is Platos reason and
contemplation enough. Yes, it is good to think and to hypothesize and to speculate about
4
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
5/21
the way things work but ideas must be supported in the material world. Experiments and
controlled observation are required. The actions of the physical world have the final say.
And, those actions can be known only by observation: seeing, touching, and hearing. We
can measure and quantify the properties of the world and thereby increase our
understanding and our control. Aristotle thought that heavier things would fall faster than
lighter things but after Galileo dropped weights off the Tower of Pisa his views replaced
those of Aristotle. He observed the moons of Jupiter through a crude telescope and
concluded that Copernicus was right. Observation of the physical world, not the ancient
philosophers and not religious dogma, has the final say.
Most of us accept the methods and principles of science unhesitatingly. Reality, truth,
facts, exist and we are able to observe and measure them. We can see, touch and hear them
but even if we cant they are still there. Reality does not depend on us. Reality is what it
is. We are bystanders in the natural world, it would continue just fine without us. Maybe!
We are, in a sense, outside the physical world but have access to it through the senses. We
do both science and life the same way. Truth comes through observation: We come to
know and understand by perceiving the world. From the scientific point of view the senses
are the windows to reality and truth.
PERCEPTION AND THE WORLD
Having spent much of my adult life studying and teaching the psychology of perception I
have had some second thoughts about this view. The relationship between the physical
world and our experience of it is not as straight forward as some might like. Maybe truth
5
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
6/21
can be found through observation but there have been many doubters along the way.
Soon after the onset of the Renaissance and birth of science John Locke ( 1690)
recognized that some qualities of the physical world are given in sensory stimulation butothersecondary qualities, as he called them, are not. There is nothing physically in the
apple resembling its sweetness or its redness. These aresecondary qualities; they are
ideas which emanate from the physical properties of the apple but have no resemblance to
those physical properties. Secondary qualities are partially physical because they emanate
from physical properties but they are also psychological. The apple reflects light which
produces the experience (idea for Locke) of redness, but light waves are not red; they
have no color. The sweetness of the apple is produced by particles in its flesh but our
experience is nothing like those particles. In other words, we experience qualities which are
not really in the world but rather in us and come into being when worldly things come
together with our sense organs.
George Berkeley (1709) followed Locke. As a Bishop in The Church, Berkeley wasoffended by the growing interest in materialism and science which seemed to be
replacing religion as the way to truth. Berkeley wrote about the perception of size and
distance and showed how even these primary qualitiesare ideas just like Lockes
secondary qualities. There is no referent in visual stimulation for the perception of
distance, it is just space. The perception of size can not be based on the size of a retinal
image which varies with the distance of the viewed object. Berkeley questioned the
veracity of perception as a window to the physical world. He went so far at to suggest that
existence depends on ideas or perceptions: to be is to be perceived as he put it.
Perception is not necessarily a copy of reality but rather a psychological phenomenon.
The relationship between the material world and its perception is less than clear.
6
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
7/21
David Hume (1748) pointed out that a central idea of the blossoming Newtonian science,
causality, was also not given in physical stimulation. You can see one billiard ball strike
another but you can not see that the first caused the movement of the second. Causation is
not given in stimulation but is rather an idea like Lockes secondary qualities. You can
see sequence, ball A hits ball B, but you can not see the causation between them.
Causation is imposed by the mind when events happen in quick sequence. Although
causality is a core idea of science, it is not observable.
Emanuel Kant (1781) attributed the experience of causality to what he called an a prioricategory. That is, Kant tells us that we humans are constructed to experience concepts like
time, space and causality under certain conditions. These ideas or perceptions result from
the brains operations on certain configurations of sensory stimulation. They are not given
in sensory stimulation itself but result from the minds operation on sensory stimulation.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO PERCEPTION
In the modern era there have been two fundamental approaches to the study of sensory
perception. The more traditional approach is grounded in the ideas of the philosophers
noted above. It maintains that sensory stimulation is not sufficient to account for
perception but rather must be enriched with cognitive content like memory. Our past
experience joins the processing of sensory stimulation to create a meaningful perception.
Irwin Rock called this view the indirect theory of perception and described the perceptual
7
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
8/21
process as akin to thought, inference, cognition and reasoning.. In the 1950's James
Gibson suggested that there is actually enough information in sensory stimulation to
account for our perceptual experience. For example the perception of distance is explained
by gradients of texture found in retinal stimulation. Looking down the hallway produces a
retinal image of the tile floor. The images of these tiles on the retina get smaller with
increasing distance. Like the retinal space between railroad tracks decreases with
increasing distance, the size of floor tiles on the retina also decreases. An observer doesn't
have to enrich his visual stimulation with knowledge to see distance, he just has to attend
to the gradient of texture contained in the retinal stimulation. Detection of the gradient
is sufficient to produce the perception of distance. As a graduate student and for most of
my professional life I was a faithful Gibsonian, wholeheartedly embracing the direct
theory of perception. However, as the psychology of perception became more and more
influenced by research in neurophysiology it was hard not to recognize the
contribution of cognitive influences.
VISUAL PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD
I would like now to review some contemporary thinking in the neurophysiology of visual
perception. Visual perception is very different from the operation of a camera which simply
focuses an image on a light sensitive surface like film. Seeing involves a highly complex
series of neurological processes which we will briefly describe here.
8
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
9/21
Sunlight bounces off objects and is reflected to our eyes. The reflected light waves travel
through the pupil and are focused by the lens to form a clear picture on the retina. The
retina contains millions of light sensitive cells called rods and cones and these cells
transduce or transform light energy into electro-chemical energy. They take in light and
send out nervous impulses that travel through the optic nerve up to the brain.
As messages from the retina enter the brain they go first to a place called the lateral
geniculate nucleus or LGN. The LGN is kind of a transfer station for incoming sensory
information and is organized like the rods and cones of the retina. That it, it isretinotopically organized as many of the visual areas of the brain. The LGN sends
information to the primary visual cortex at the back of the brain. We used to think that the
primary visual cortex was the center for seeing but we know better now. Actually, it is just
a gathering place for primitive pieces of visual information. Groups of receptors in the
retina, i.e. groups of rods and cones, work together and are able to detect certain small
pieces of a visual scene. Cells in the visual cortex receive this grouped information, via
the LGN, as lines, angles, and curves. We may think we have a picture in our mind but all
that the primary visual cortex has are these elementary bits and pieces that eventually get
put together to form a meaningful perception.
The lines, angles and curves that are briefly stored in the visual cortex soon leave there and
head for still further processing. They move forward via two general routes or pathways.
The what pathway carries information about color, shape and size as it travels into the
temporal lobe of the cortex and heads toward still higher centers of the brain. The where
pathway(now also referred to as the how pathway) carries information that enables us to
see movement, location and spatial relationships. It follows a different route moving
9
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
10/21
upward in the brain into the parietal lobe. An article in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 1 states The monkey cortex [similar to ours] contains at least 30
separate visual areas, occupying about one half of the total cortex. We now know that
there is no single visual center in the brain but rather different regions and locations which
progressively combine and integrate information that eventually becomes a meaningful
perceptual experience. Sereno and Allman (1998) 2 note that percentage of cortical areas
beyond the primary visual cortex that are implicated in vision varies between species. In
turtles and hedgehogs there appear to be only two cortical visual areas. This contrasts
strongly with primates, for example, which have more than twenty visual areas. They note
Total visual cortex ...occupies 45-55% of the total neocortex in most mammals that have
been examined but it is probably larger than 75% in apes and humans.
The what and where ('how' to respond ) pathways beginning in the visual cortex wind
their way forward to the prefrontal lobes behind the forehead. The frontal lobes are the
most recent part of the brain and are most developed in the humanoids but we humans have
larger prefrontal areas than our distant cousins. The prefrontal lobes may well be the seat
of our humanness. Their complex bidirectional connections to other areas of the brain
including the emotional centers, cognitive areas, sensory pathways from more basic visual,
auditory and other sensory centers, permit the integration of inputs into meaningful
conscious experiences. We believe it is here that conscious perceptions are formed. It is
here that executive decisions seem to be made. It is here that perceptions are briefly stored
so that meaningful actions can take place. That is why the where pathway is also called
the how pathway: it decides how to act on the percept.
PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION
10
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
11/21
11
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
12/21
The lines, angles and curves that form our perceptions can be organized in different ways
as so many optical illusions demonstrate. In the two illusory figures above it is easy to
experience alternative organizations. If you stare at the Necker Cube for a minute or so
you will probably notice that it flips directions or changes orientation. In the vase/face
figure you can focus on the center of the figure and see the vase or you can attend to the
outside white areas and see two faces looking at each other. The same bits and pieces can
be experienced differently. More than the bits and pieces are at play here. What you know
counts too. Past experience plays a role in organizing the bits and pieces.
12
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
13/21
http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?tag=individual-differences Modified
13
http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?tag=individual-differenceshttp://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnlab/?tag=individual-differences -
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
14/21
HUMAN AND ANIMAL BRAINS
Our prefrontal lobes have access to huge amounts of information stored in different
regions of the brain. And, the connections are usually bi-directional so that signals can
flow in both directions. There is more at play here than the external stimulus. Perceptions
are unlike photos; they are extremely complex integrations of stimulus representations,
cognitive processes and even emotions.
We have seen the complexity of the human visual system which includes many areas of the
cortex, including the occipital lobes, the parietal lobes, the temporal lobes, the frontal and
prefrontal lobes. While we share these brain regions with the higher primates; the apes,
gorillas, chimpanzees, and even some other animals lower on the evolutionary ladder, there
are some important differences.
Human and other primate brains are structurally similar but our human brains are much
larger and heavier. They are also qualitatively different. It appears that there has been a
disproportionate development of the prefrontal areas in humans. The surface of the human
prefrontal areas is characterized by much greater gyrification. These gyrations or folds
permit the size of the prefrontal cortex to increase without increasing its area. In other
words, our prefrontal lobes are indeed larger than other primates but more importantly they
contain much greater surface area. There is much greater neural density in the human
prefrontal areas. This density seems to permit increased interconnectivity which may be
behind our distinct cognitive advantages. Rilling (2006) 3 suggests that humans are a
positive outlier among the primates.
14
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
15/21
..natural selection uniquely modified the human brain to deviate from the rules of
brain design that obtain among other primates. A unique evolutionary modification in
the human prefrontal cortex is intriguing because this brain region is involved in
many cognitive operations that are especially well-developed in humans, such as
symbolic thinking, knowledge of appropriate behavior, decision making, planning
cognitive control, and working memory.
Cognitive psychologist David Premack (2007) 4 has suggested that the 'basic uniformity'
among mammalian brains, assumed since Darwin, prevailed until the 1980's. More
recently neuroscientists have discovered significant dissimilarities between the brains of our
nearest cousins and ourselves. One difference lies in the organization of the visual cortex
which is much more complex in humans that in apes. Recently Schoenemann and
colleagues (2005) 5 have discovered a large difference in the white matter of the prefrontal
areas in humans and other primates. Whilst gray matter is primarily associated with
processing and cognition, white matter modulates the distribution of action potentials,
acting as a relay and coordinating communication between different brain regions. This
observation lends further support to the increased ability of the human prefrontal areas to
function as integration centers for many areas of the brain.
Premack points out that for many years we have focused on the ability of other primates to
perform actions like using tools, language, human like social behavior, etc. We have
focused on the similarities between us. However, we should also point out the
dissimilarities. As charming as we find the other primates we should note that they have
not yet built libraries and universities. They have not yet mastered the art of neurosurgery
or created cell phones or computers. They have not yet discovered other galaxies or how to
make a motion picture. We are different. We are 'outliers.'
It seems safe to conclude that while the human brain has similarities to other mammals and
15
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
16/21
primates there are also important differences. Because our brains differ both quantitatively
and qualitatively our perceptions are also very likely to differ. Our human visual input
undergoes extremely complex processing and integration with several areas of the brain.
Our perceptual experience does not have a point for point correspondence with either
sensory stimulation or with the physical world. As Locke, Berkeley, Irwin Rock and many
others have claimed, our perceptions are complex cognitive events.
If we are to survive and prosper our sensory experience must reasonably represent the world
in which we live. However, we don't need access to everything in the world. We have no
personal access nor need of much of the electromagnetic spectrum. Energies flow aroundus without notice. Radio waves and ultraviolet waves, X rays and microwaves surround us
all the time but we have no personal sensory detectors to experience them. We have no
sensory apparatus to detect sounds below or above a certain frequency. We have no
immediate visual access to atoms or molecules although they surround us at all times. We
see the flower blossom but we do not see the microscopic particles that comprise it. We
are told that the universe consists of items such as atoms, electrons, protons, quarks, and
now waves of particles; none of which is observable except maybe to physicists in very
specialized laboratories. It appears that we really don't know 'reality' at its most basic
levels.
As other species, we need to find water, food, shelter, and mates. Our sensory systems
were designed to detect these necessities. And the same is true for the birds and the bees
and the bugs and the beasts. However, we all need different forms of food, shelter, and
mates. We are built to accommodate our needs and our distant and not so distant cousins
are blessed with the equipment and programs to fulfill theirs. I suspect that the bluebird in
the tree experiences a very different tree than we do. He may see nesting possibilities or a
16
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
17/21
source of food. We detect delicate leaves, blossoms, and graceful branches. Their tree is
not our tree but we both are seeing correctly. Yes, there is overlap in our visual worlds. We
also see the small branch the bird alights on and the berry his selects for dinner. The tree
exists. The material world is not an illusion. But it most likely exists differently for each
of us. Different species live in different worlds, all real, all co-existing, all equally valid.
As the path of the electron takes many forms, so may our experience of the world.
CONCLUSION
Twenty five hundred years ago Plato claimed that to know and understand everlasting truths
we must forsake the shadows of the material world and exercise our unique human ability
to think and reason. Aristotle's syllogisms demonstrate our human capacity for reasoning.
All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal Some things are self
evident.
I like the Greek idea of reason and find much to recommend it. The Greeks thought of
reason as our defining human characteristic, our special gift, the quality that makes us
different from other species. But we all know that reason can sometimes fail us. Reason
must be used correctly and that does not always happen.
The Church of the middle ages embraced the ancient Greek commitment to reason but
modified it to fit the times. They called it 'revelation', God's direct influence upon ones
thinking. Of course, Church dogma and authority were considered imbued with reason
and must be so regarded by all. A thousand years of reliance on 'revelation', dogma and
authority proved very painful for millions.
17
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
18/21
In our time scientific methods seem to be the preferred path to knowledge, facts, and
truthfulness. Observation and measurement, not reason, not dogma, not authority, are
trustworthy guides to reality. We have suggested however, that human observation and
perception may also be problematic. Our perceptions are not only subject to error, our very
humanness may limit the capacity to know. Perception is a cognitive process, grounded in
neurophysiology. Since the brains of species differ their cognitive processes are likely to
differ too. Surely we humans see the lake differently than the fish who live there. Are we
right and they wrong? Is there a right? Could it be that we are all right? Are there many
worlds?
Now that we have come to doubt the primary methods of knowing where do we stand? Is
truth a dying concept? Quantum theory is inconsistent with our most fundamental
assumptions about the world. It is almost impossible to comprehend; even Einstein couldn't
endure it. How do we navigate a probabilistic universe without facts and without
certainty, without truth? Are we on our way to a new paradigm for knowing and living?
18
-
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
19/21
NOTES
1. Ungerleider, L. G., Courtney, S. M., and Haxby, J.V. (1998) A Neural System for
Human Visual Working Memory. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences,
Vol. 95, pp 883-890.
2. Sereno, M. I. and Allman, J.M. (1991). Cortical Visual Areas in Mammals. In A.
G. Leventhal (ed) The Neural Basis of Visual Function. London: Macmillan, pp160-
172.
3. Rilling, J. K. (2006) Human and NonHuman Primate Brains: Are they Allometrically
Scaled Versions of the Same Design? Evolutionary Anthropology 15, pp.66-77.
4. Premack, David (2007) Human and Animal Cognition: Continuity and Discontinuity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104, no. 35, pp.13861-13867.
5. Schoenemann, P. T. , Sheehan, M. J. and Glotzer, L. D. (2005)Nature Neuroscience,
Vol 8, pp242-252.
6. Please see Forrester, Rochelle, (2002) Sense Perception and Reality for a similar
view as suggested here but she has cast it primarily in the context of modern physics.Her paper can be viewed at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Sense-Perception-
and-Reality.html
I was able to find only a very scant literature on the visual pathways of animals. I think
this issue might benefit greatly from further exploration of the literature and research on
animal neurophysiology regarding perception.
19
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Sense-Perception-and-Reality.htmlhttp://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Sense-Perception-and-Reality.htmlhttp://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Sense-Perception-and-Reality.htmlhttp://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Sense-Perception-and-Reality.html -
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
20/21
http://io9.com/5890414/the-4-biggest-myths-about-the-human-brain
20
http://io9.com/5890414/the-4-biggest-myths-about-the-human-brainhttp://io9.com/5890414/the-4-biggest-myths-about-the-human-brain -
7/27/2019 PERCEPTION AND SPECIES SPECIFIC WORLDS ?
21/21
21