Sobre o que vemos...

 Há anos chamaram-me a atenção para o facto dos mais próximos de Jesus não o terem reconhecido inicialmente quando este ressuscitou, desde Maria Madalena até aos discípulos a caminho de Emaús.

Depois li Anil Seth e ouvi Daniel Hoffman.

Por isso, volta e meia penso sobre o tema. Por exemplo:

What you see is all there is.

[The eyes cannot see what the mind does not know.

We only see what our mind allows us to see.

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.]

What the mind is prepared to comprehend is all there is.

— Carlos P da Cruz 🇺🇦🚜🇳🇱🇬🇪🇮🇱 (@ccz1) March 9, 2024

Ontem apanhei isto e é tão weird... 

In 1951, Adelbert Ames created the mind-boggling ‘Ames Window’. It’s so effective that even when you know how it works you can’t break the illusion

[📹 The Curiosity Show]https://t.co/lm7aoCBxVs

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) April 18, 2024

O que fazemos no mundo

"because his feelings are what filter his perceptions and direct his reasoning.

...

Most of us have the human mind and motivation all wrong. We think that people are moving through the world trying to understand “reality,” in the hopes of making it better for themselves and for others. We’re not.

Instead, we’re rapidly screening and interpreting stimuli, searching for information that we believe can improve, promote, and protect ourselves. Or, more precisely, information that can improve and protect our images and ideas of ourselves."

Trechos retirados de "Don't trust, verify" 

 

"It may even be that action comes first"

Há anos li um artigo, que não consigo localizar, que estabelecia uma forte relação sobre origem do pensamento consciente com os sinais que uma amiba tem de emitir para se deslocar numa certa direcção em busca de comida. 

Há anos que adoptei não o PDCA, o ciclo de Deming, mas a versão que aprendi com Shoji Shiba:

Não começamos com o planeamento (P), começamos com a acção (D à esquerda), e da análise dos resultados da acção calibramos a acção seguinte.

Há dias apanhei isto, em  "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" de Anil Seth:

"It’s tempting to think of our interaction with the world in the following way. First, we perceive the world as it is. Then we decide what to do. Then we do it. Sense, think, act. This may be how things seem, but once again how things seem is a poor guide to how they actually are. It’s time to bring action into the picture.

Action is inseparable from perception. Perception and action are so tightly coupled that they determine and define each other. Every action alters perception by changing the incoming sensory data, and every perception is the way it is in order to help guide action. There is simply no point to perception in the absence of action. We perceive the world around us in order to act effectively within it, to achieve our goals and – in the long run – to promote our prospects of survival. We don’t perceive the world as it is, we perceive it as it is useful for us to do so.

It may even be that action comes first. Instead of picturing the brain as reaching perceptual best guesses in order to then guide behaviour, we can think of brains as fundamentally in the business of generating actions, and continually calibrating these actions using sensory signals, so as to best achieve the organism’s goals. This view casts the brain as an intrinsically dynamic, active system, continually probing its environment and examining the consequences."

Algo que se encaixa bem no clássico "fuçar" deste blogue ou ainda de Tom Peters: "Fuçar, uma espécie de humildade"

"the brain is continually generating predictions about sensory signals"

"Let’s return to our imagined brain, quiet and dark inside its skull, trying to figure out what’s out there in the world. We can now recognise this challenge as an ideal opportunity to invoke Bayesian inference. When the brain is making best guesses about the causes of its noisy and ambiguous sensory signals, it is following the principles of the Reverend Thomas Bayes.

...

the idea that perception happens through a continual process of prediction error minimisation. According to this idea, the brain is continually generating predictions about sensory signals and comparing these predictions with the sensory signals that arrive at the eyes and the ears – and the nose, and the skin, and so on. The differences between predicted and actual sensory signals give rise to prediction errors. While perceptual predictions flow predominantly in a top-down (inside-to-outside) direction, prediction errors flow in a bottom-up (outside-to-inside) direction. These prediction error signals are used by the brain to update its predictions, ready for the next round of sensory inputs. What we perceive is given by the content of all the top-down predictions together, once sensory prediction errors have been minimised – or ‘explained away’ – as far as possible.

...

And it is prediction error minimisation that provides the connection between controlled hallucinations and Bayesian inference. It takes a Bayesian claim about what the brain should do and turns it into a proposal about what it actually does do. By minimising prediction errors everywhere and all the time, it turns out that the brain is actually implementing Bayes’ rule. More precisely, it is approximating Bayes’ rule. It is this connection that licenses the idea that perceptual content is a top-down controlled hallucination, rather than a bottom-up ‘readout’ of sensory data."

Trechos retirados de "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" de Anil Seth.