Journal Entries

Simpleton's guide to political ideologies

Fellow Simpletons! smiley - winkeye

Most common ideologies are connected with the way humans live in societies. Start at the beginning, where all people are individuals, and there is no society. People who aspire to such a condition are called anarchists. They don't recognise any constraints placed upon them by society, including laws. That's not to say that they are law-breakers, they just don't take any notice of them.

Now we move to the simplest form of society, where the benefits received by citizens are minimal, as are the constraints placed upon them. This is capitalism, the chosen ideology of most 'individualists'. [No, this, on its own, is not an adequate description of capitalism. There's more to it than that. Nevertheless, in this context, the description is correct, if not complete.]

At the other end of the scale, picture a society that provides a great deal for its citizens, and asks much in return. The individual is much less important here, largely ignored in favour of society as a whole. This is socialism or communism.

The position of liberals and libertarians probably lies - with the silent majority! smiley - ok - somewhere in the middle.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: Jul 25, 2003

Flawed perceptions?

This isn't my work, it's a direct quote of something I fear might not remain available on the net. Credit and contact details are given at the end of the article. This is not an attepmt at plagiarism, but of deserved publicity for the work of researchers at the University of Toronto.

[If you've read my home page, you will know that the subject of perception is a string interest of mine. This article seems - to me - to carry the message that our (non-objective) perception is well suited to our needs, and needn't be seen as a drawback or failing. Read it and see what *you* think.]

Compromise is name of the game in how brain works, say University of Toronto researchers. The brain is constantly compromising as it pieces together information, often ignoring or downplaying small visual changes in the world that do not fit with its expectations. This process - far from being flawed - shows that the brain functions optimally, say University of Toronto researchers.

"Our brains are very well designed," says Dr. Douglas Tweed, physiology professor at U of T and senior author on a paper in the March 6 issue of Nature. "The brain takes in raw data from its surroundings through sensors and interprets it, rejecting interpretations that it considers unlikely. The brain gauges the probabilities of things in real life and uses these estimates to guide our perceptions. But sometimes we can be fooled by bizarre things.

"This shouldn't be seen as a flaw in the system, however," Tweed argues. "This is the way the brain works. Sensors are always flawed; they simply do not provide enough information for us to reconstruct our world. The brain must use prior knowledge to interpret our surroundings and we found that it seems to do this optimally."

This research project, led by U of T post-doctoral fellow Matthias Niemeier, uses a theory presented in the 1800s by Hermann von Helmholtz, a German physiologist. Helmholtz, who stated that perception is a matter of unconscious inference, suggested that all of our senses are imperfect and those signals sent to the brain are flawed. With this flawed data, the brain is forced to guess - based on its sensor readings - what is happening in the environment. With small or unexpected changes it often guesses wrong, which is why people can be fooled by optical illusions or sleight of hand, Tweed explains. He and Niemeier conducted the research with Professor Douglas Crawford of York University.

The researchers tested whether the brain's perception processes are working optimally given the flawed data it receives. They programmed a computer-simulated brain to make optimal use of sensor data and prior knowledge, giving it realistic vision and quick eye movements (also known as saccades). The researchers then measured how well it perceived events in its simulated world.

The team compared these findings with those of human subjects. Subjects' heads were immobilized and a device shaped like a contact lens inserted into their eye to measure its motion and relay information back to a computer. Using a large screen, researchers conducted two experiments that tested participants' perceptions of distance and degree of change, using a white dot that "jumped" on the screen. They found that small jumps were invisible to participants; larger ones were seen but individuals underestimated how far the dot jumped.

"What we found was that, in simple situations, the simulated computer brain perceived things the same way and made the same kinds of errors that human brains do, even when we programmed the computer to function optimally," says Niemeier.

"When small changes occurred during a saccade, these changes were either ignored or downplayed by both the computer and the test subjects. So we concluded that the optimal solution when it comes to perceiving the outside environment is to ignore some changes."

The brain knows what can and cannot realistically occur based on probability and prior knowledge, say the researchers. Eyes have quite a narrow field of high-resolution vision, something in the area of two degrees, Niemeier explains. To obtain a complete picture, a person's eyes are constantly making quick movements. These saccades - about 100,000 a day - scan our surroundings and take about 30 milliseconds each. The brain knows that an event is unlikely to happen in 30 milliseconds and either ignores or downplays small changes (also known as saccadic suppression of displacement). Only when a change is large enough does the brain notice, he says.

"The brain makes the best possible use of the flawed data it gets from sensors like the eyes or ears, piecing together bits of information until a final picture is obtained, much like the process involved in solving a jigsaw puzzle," adds Tweed. "The sensors react even to unlikely or unexpected events but the brain disregards some of these signals to form one coherent picture. The brain is always compromising."


###
The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canada Research Chairs program.

CONTACT:
Janet Wong
U of T Public Affairs
416-978-5949
[email protected]

Dr. Douglas Tweed
Department of Physiology
416-978-2603
[email protected]

Matthias Niemeier
Department of Physiology
416-736-2100, x. 20055 or 519-661-3830
[email protected]

Many thanks to the University of Toronto for making this information publically available.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: Mar 10, 2003

Left, left, left right left...

I've heard the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' so often for so long that I became 'blind' to them. What distinguishes one from the other? This is what I came up with:

Socialists are left-wing, and it's that name that leads to the root of it all: society. An extreme left-winger will pursue the aspirations of society as a whole, setting aside those of individuals whenever necessary.

An extreme right-winger is the opposite: pursuing the needs and aspirations of the individual, setting aside those of the community whenever necessary.

Now when I consider the British Labour and Tory parties, I can see what underlies the 'left' and 'right' value judgements made concerning politicians and their policies. The main benefit of this insight, though, is that it makes it obvious (to me, perhaps not to you?) that the middle path is the best way to proceed, balancing the needs of the individual *and* those of society.

You learn something new every day.... smiley - ok

Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: Feb 22, 2003

Community

In the light of the recent murder of two little girls, I am worried by the concept of 'community' fed to us by the media. Years ago, there *were* communities, although I suspect they weren't as close as rose-tinted spectacles would have us believe. Nowadays, there is not really a community spirit anywhere, in any neighbourhood. Our present-day existence is characterised by the *lack* of community.

The Thatcher Jugend care only for themselves; many of them rejoice to see those who are less fortunate than themselves; it makes them feel good. smiley - doh "I'm alright Jack" is the watchword of our age; we have no communities any more. smiley - blue

This dishonesty is not an isolated occurrence. We do it all the time, and our media do it to us. For example, every murder victim, particularly a child, turns out to be a shining example of humanity. To talk ill of the dead is impolite and achieves nothing, I agree. But the pretence that two ordinary little girls, with normal human failings like the rest of us, were angels is an insult to their memory, I think. And to our intelligence.

Discuss this Journal entry [8]

Latest reply: Aug 19, 2002

Risk, blame and compensation

Nowadays there is a growing expectation that any misfortune is someone's fault, and thus subject to a claim for compensation. This attitude may have gone farther than you think. I recently heard someone on the radio explain how things that used to be considered 'acts of God' are now seen as being someone's fault. Even an unexpected thunder storm is the fault of the weather forecasters for not giving adequate warning....

This worries me: soon we shall not be able to obtain the professional services we used to take for granted, because the practitioners cannot afford the public liability insurance. Off-duty medical staff are strongly advised NOT to offer aid to an injured person, as they could be sued if something goes wrong.

We need to define 'one of those things' in a legal sense, so that a court can consider a particular case, and conclude (if appropriate) that no-one was at fault, and no compensation is due.

What do YOU think?

Discuss this Journal entry [2]

Latest reply: Aug 14, 2002


Back to Gone again's Personal Space Home

Gone again

Researcher U131178

Work Edited by h2g2

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more