1) It’s not that some illusions give hints as to how human cognition works; all of them do, because that’s what makes it an illusion: a deviation from accuracy that is used as a usually-harmless shortcut.
2) All inference, not just perception, is based on incomplete information. MacKay says (quoting someone far before him), “To make inferences, you must make assumptions.”
3) I don’t think it’s most accurate to say that the brain prefers wrong to uncertain. Rather, it prefers sometimes-wrong to always-uncertain. The heuristics it uses will usually be right, giving the benefit of being able to make use of greater (assumed) knowledge of a scene, at the cost of being wrong in a few rare cases. This is better than remaining non-committal, such as what would result from only using an Occamian heuristic.
4) The spinning dancer illusion doesn’t work because of the detail; it works because it strips away all of the hints your brain normally uses to disambiguate a scene (such as light gradients, relative sizes, etc.)
5) Here’s another great multi-stable perception illusion—with something like 6 possible perceptions.
6) Great article! I’m also writing one about the non-obvious constraints that general intelligence must adhere to.
ETA: So I guess you guys want more of this kind of comment and less of the other?
I’m also writing one about the non-obvious constraints that general intelligence must adhere to.
Ah, I’m looking forward to that. I’ve been wondering for some time now about what invariants can be expected in the design space of general minds.
it prefers sometimes-wrong to always-uncertain
I’m referring to the trope that “indecision is worse than a bad decison”, which enjoys some currency despite being correct only under very constrained conditions. I think I first came across it in one of Heinlein’s novels, where he mentions it as a heuristic of military command.
it works because it strips away all of the hints
That too: and the reconstructed motion relies, it seems to me, on the details which make it a convicing picture of a spinning dancer, as opposed to an abstract dark figure. However...
another great multi-stable perception illusion
Wow. Neat. Especially neat is how the cues work; once you’ve had the perception you no longer need them and can bring flip almost at will. There are some intriguing aspects, like I can’t keep on perceiving the helix if I look away from the center.
“To make inferences, you must make assumptions”
“When you assUme, you make an ass of U and me”—another great quote about the role ambiguity can play in human communication and interpersonal relations that I wanted to work into the post but couldn’t find a spot for. ;)
Ah, I’m looking forward to that. I’ve been wondering for some time now about what invariants can be expected in the design space of general minds.
Thanks, but it’s not so much about what to expect of minds in general, but rather, it’s a list of criteria you’ll need to meet if you want to design a good, intelligent, cross-domain-optimizing mind. However, the sets do overlap, and you can probably use it the way you describe, to some extent, just as long as you don’t expect everything to always hold.
That too: and the reconstructed motion relies, it seems to me, on the details which make it a convicing picture of a spinning dancer, as opposed to an abstract dark figure.
Okay, fair point then. (Still, did they have to make the, um, chest area so detailed at the … um, endpoint...?)
(Btw, I noticed after clicking on your name that you can add a location and website to your handle, which I just completed.)
Yes: I noticed because of the work I’ve done recently on the integrated Anti-Kibitzer, but otherwise I suspect it will go unnoticed. Wondering if the Tricycle folks are planning a brief top-level post to advertise the changes.
Happen to be on FICS? I just realized that there are probably a lot of chess players on Less Wrong and it wouldn’t be hard to make a Google group if there were enough frequent users.
I agree with most of your points, but this stood out:
All inference, not just perception, is based on incomplete information.
There’s a very important difference between (i) perceiving the black shape as a dancer spinning on her right foot and (ii) deducing that if Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal then Socrates is mortal.
In case (i) the ‘premises’ (i.e. the animation) didn’t contain sufficient information to determine that the conclusion was correct. In case (ii) the premises are sufficient.
Scattered comments:
1) It’s not that some illusions give hints as to how human cognition works; all of them do, because that’s what makes it an illusion: a deviation from accuracy that is used as a usually-harmless shortcut.
2) All inference, not just perception, is based on incomplete information. MacKay says (quoting someone far before him), “To make inferences, you must make assumptions.”
3) I don’t think it’s most accurate to say that the brain prefers wrong to uncertain. Rather, it prefers sometimes-wrong to always-uncertain. The heuristics it uses will usually be right, giving the benefit of being able to make use of greater (assumed) knowledge of a scene, at the cost of being wrong in a few rare cases. This is better than remaining non-committal, such as what would result from only using an Occamian heuristic.
4) The spinning dancer illusion doesn’t work because of the detail; it works because it strips away all of the hints your brain normally uses to disambiguate a scene (such as light gradients, relative sizes, etc.)
5) Here’s another great multi-stable perception illusion—with something like 6 possible perceptions.
6) Great article! I’m also writing one about the non-obvious constraints that general intelligence must adhere to.
ETA: So I guess you guys want more of this kind of comment and less of the other?
Ah, I’m looking forward to that. I’ve been wondering for some time now about what invariants can be expected in the design space of general minds.
I’m referring to the trope that “indecision is worse than a bad decison”, which enjoys some currency despite being correct only under very constrained conditions. I think I first came across it in one of Heinlein’s novels, where he mentions it as a heuristic of military command.
That too: and the reconstructed motion relies, it seems to me, on the details which make it a convicing picture of a spinning dancer, as opposed to an abstract dark figure. However...
Wow. Neat. Especially neat is how the cues work; once you’ve had the perception you no longer need them and can bring flip almost at will. There are some intriguing aspects, like I can’t keep on perceiving the helix if I look away from the center.
“When you assUme, you make an ass of U and me”—another great quote about the role ambiguity can play in human communication and interpersonal relations that I wanted to work into the post but couldn’t find a spot for. ;)
Thanks, but it’s not so much about what to expect of minds in general, but rather, it’s a list of criteria you’ll need to meet if you want to design a good, intelligent, cross-domain-optimizing mind. However, the sets do overlap, and you can probably use it the way you describe, to some extent, just as long as you don’t expect everything to always hold.
Okay, fair point then. (Still, did they have to make the, um, chest area so detailed at the … um, endpoint...?)
(Btw, I noticed after clicking on your name that you can add a location and website to your handle, which I just completed.)
Yes: I noticed because of the work I’ve done recently on the integrated Anti-Kibitzer, but otherwise I suspect it will go unnoticed. Wondering if the Tricycle folks are planning a brief top-level post to advertise the changes.
I have also added my info—I would definitely approve of such a post.
Happen to be on FICS? I just realized that there are probably a lot of chess players on Less Wrong and it wouldn’t be hard to make a Google group if there were enough frequent users.
I mostly play postal-like chess on Gameknot as “packbat”, but I apparently have an account as “RobinZ”. I’ve never used it.
Cool, didn’t know what you looked like until now.
Nice improvement on not having profiles. It still seems oddly limiting… no room to list an email. I’d like to see a Hacker News style empty box.
I agree with most of your points, but this stood out:
There’s a very important difference between (i) perceiving the black shape as a dancer spinning on her right foot and (ii) deducing that if Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal then Socrates is mortal.
In case (i) the ‘premises’ (i.e. the animation) didn’t contain sufficient information to determine that the conclusion was correct. In case (ii) the premises are sufficient.