5 ms·

> The thing about illusions is that we generally know that we are being subject to an illusion. Citation needed? I did my undergrad in cognitive science, and w

by aroman 9y ago

> The thing about illusions is that we generally know that we are being subject to an illusion. Citation needed? I did my undergrad in cognitive science, and while my knowledge of illusions is very limited, I never came across anything to suggest that we have an innate awareness of when our perceptual system is being tricked.

hyperbovine 9y ago
Wait, isn't that completely obvious? As a kid I used to seek them out precisely for the thrill of feeling my brain being tricked. Nobody needs to be told why MC Escher drawings are fun to look at.
mannykannot 9y ago
Frankly, when I first saw your post, I thought I was being trolled, especially as the phrase 'citation needed' is over-used, frequently in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof. For a citation, there's hyperbovine's reply. On reflection, however, I think your post raises a reasonable question. Firstly, whether it is innate, learned or some combination, all are equally valid here. In general, we cannot know if we are being deceived by our senses, and if you follow this line of argument to its end, you reach solipsism. With regard to the illusions of the sort presented in the linked article, they seem to fall into three types. There are the ones where we are immediately aware of being subject to an illusion; this is especially true in the cases where there is apparent motion. There are some where we do not notice unless we investigate further or have our attention brought to it, such as those involving apparent differences in brightness or color. Then there are those that actually depend on us noticing that there is an illusion - Necker cubes, for example. In real life, when faced with an ambiguous input from our senses, we are often aware the fact because of the dissonance with our general understanding of the world, and we are usually able to take actions specifically designed to resolve the ambiguity. In contrast, AI can be very confident about the most ridiculous conclusions. So we don't infallibly know when we are being tricked, but even in the cases where we are, further investigation often reveals that what is going on. In contrast, has any AI ever demonstrated any understanding of the concept of an illusion? The fact that we can sometimes be tricked by illusions for a while does not imply that AI has reached parity with humans in this regard, or that the fragility of image recognition is not an issue.
- jononor 9y ago
  Isnt cognitive bias kind of an 'illusion'? Our mind interprets available data in ways that seems to make sense, but actually is wrong.

by aroman 9y ago

hyperbovine 9y ago

Wait, isn't that completely obvious? As a kid I used to seek them out precisely for the thrill of feeling my brain being tricked. Nobody needs to be told why MC Escher drawings are fun to look at.

mannykannot 9y ago

Frankly, when I first saw your post, I thought I was being trolled, especially as the phrase 'citation needed' is over-used, frequently in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof. For a citation, there's hyperbovine's reply. On reflection, however, I think your post raises a reasonable question. Firstly, whether it is innate, learned or some combination, all are equally valid here. In general, we cannot know if we are being deceived by our senses, and if you follow this line of argument to its end, you reach solipsism. With regard to the illusions of the sort presented in the linked article, they seem to fall into three types. There are the ones where we are immediately aware of being subject to an illusion; this is especially true in the cases where there is apparent motion. There are some where we do not notice unless we investigate further or have our attention brought to it, such as those involving apparent differences in brightness or color. Then there are those that actually depend on us noticing that there is an illusion - Necker cubes, for example. In real life, when faced with an ambiguous input from our senses, we are often aware the fact because of the dissonance with our general understanding of the world, and we are usually able to take actions specifically designed to resolve the ambiguity. In contrast, AI can be very confident about the most ridiculous conclusions. So we don't infallibly know when we are being tricked, but even in the cases where we are, further investigation often reveals that what is going on. In contrast, has any AI ever demonstrated any understanding of the concept of an illusion? The fact that we can sometimes be tricked by illusions for a while does not imply that AI has reached parity with humans in this regard, or that the fragility of image recognition is not an issue.

jononor 9y ago
Isnt cognitive bias kind of an 'illusion'? Our mind interprets available data in ways that seems to make sense, but actually is wrong.