{"id":40508,"date":"2021-11-05T08:18:54","date_gmt":"2021-11-05T08:18:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/?p=40508"},"modified":"2021-11-05T08:18:56","modified_gmt":"2021-11-05T08:18:56","slug":"ui-theory-w-hoffmann","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/?p=40508","title":{"rendered":"UI theory w\/ Hoffmann"},"content":{"rendered":"<p id=\"top\" \/>\n<p>In our experience, in many occasions, we may pay more attention to some specific object of our surrounding: say a stone, or a fruit. By manipulating it, we unveil different aspects of the object, possibly at different scales and under different light conditions. It&#8217;s as if we could zoom in on the icon of the UI, but by doing so we reveal more intricate details (from low to higher resolutions to keep with the UI metaphor).<br>By doing so, we get more connected to our environment, but I would not say that this is about veridicality. For instance, we may pay attention to the silhouette of a cloud, which makes no physical sense since a cloud has no clearly defined boundary\u2026I guess this raises the question of how you include dynamics and action in the Interface Theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Another question I have is more about methodology: if individual culture and experience can shape our UI to some extent, then what are the implications for Psycho-Physics? In particular, when does it make sense to consider material perception as the average response of several subjects, as they may take very different strategies to make sense of an image?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-right\"><em>Great questions. On the dynamics of consciousness, we have a paper\u00a0<a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2014.00577\/full\">here<\/a>. I have\u00a0also attached a couple papers,\u00a0especially the paper\u00a0\u201cConscious_Agents_Networks_18.pdf\u201d.<br>On the\u00a0interactions of observers and how it affects perception, there are some\u00a0ideas the\u00a0abovementioned papers, but I have also attached some papers by other\u00a0researchers which give interesting directions to\u00a0pursue.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I have tons of questions, but I&#8217;ll bother you only with two of them that are really making me scratch my head:<br><br><strong>1) About the conscious realism theory.<\/strong> It seems that your theory only requires <em>interacting <\/em>agents, not necessarily <em>conscious <\/em>agents: in other words, an elementary agent that perceives, decides and acts might simply be said to be interacting with the world, consciousness <em>per se<\/em> being reserved to more complex assemblies of agents, where perception of an agent&#8217;s own acts and decisions starts to be possible. Maybe this is only a question of terminology, but at least in my view, the term &#8220;consciousness&#8221; refers to something more complex than elementary decisions and actions&#8230;\u00a0<br>Instead of <em>objects of consciousness<\/em>, you could then talk of <em>objects of agency<\/em> (still a very bold theory!). Actually, you seem to mention that your theory might still work with unconscious agents (in the answer to the first objection in the paper). But maybe I have misunderstood your point and consciousness is really necessary at the level of elementary agents for your theory to work? If yes, could you tell me how?<br><br><strong>2) About the user interface theory. <\/strong>You argue that space, time and objects are most likely artifacts of our user interface, so much that the veridicality of perception is extremely unlikely (non-generic). This seems to make the very notion of veridicality useless, since in the unlikely case where our perception would be veridical, we would have no way to know this is the case, right? I have found this approach enlightening, but at the same time of limited use for the practical study of visual perception.<br>But what if instead we <em>posit<\/em> the existence of a <em>subjective <\/em>world with space, time and objects (much like 3D artists create virtual worlds, down to some level of precision). We could then ask whether an observer at a given time and location has a veridical perception of <em>that <\/em>world, or whether it relies on a user interface that is more or less disconnected from it. I believe this is what most vision scientists have in their mind when talking about veridical perceptions, except they assume that there is only one (objective) world to be perceived, which I disagree with. Instead, I would suggest that the subjective world of an observer consists in all he could perceive given enough time and resources, which changes depending on the observer and its habitat.<br>Now my question: do you think this approach could be compatible with your deeper user interface theory? My intuition is that this is equivalent to splitting the interface in two: a <em>cognitive interface<\/em> corresponding to the subjective world that is instantiated for a given observer; and a <em>perceptual interface<\/em> used by that same observer for day-to-day visual tasks. Science could then be seen as a way to push the cognitive interface farther away from our primitive understanding of the world to make better sense of it by relying less and less on our perceptual interface. Still an inter-subjective account, but one that is less based on our immediate experience.<br><br><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In our experience, in many occasions, we may pay more attention to some specific object of our surrounding: say a stone, or a fruit. By manipulating it, we unveil different aspects of the object, possibly at different scales and under different light conditions. It&#8217;s as if we could zoom in on the icon of the &#8230; <a title=\"UI theory w\/ Hoffmann\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/?p=40508\" aria-label=\"Read more about UI theory w\/ Hoffmann\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discuss"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=40508"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40508\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40509,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40508\/revisions\/40509"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=40508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=40508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.labri.fr\/perso\/barla\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=40508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}