Misplaced Pages

Talk:Perception

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 19 February 2010 (Removed terribly WP:OWN)ish rules and regulations. You don't get to impose specific rules for your page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:17, 19 February 2010 by Fram (talk | contribs) (Removed terribly WP:OWN)ish rules and regulations. You don't get to impose specific rules for your page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Please append your contribution to the foot (the bottom ⊥ ) of this talk page; just click the "new section" tab to start. (This practice helps us when an editor is searching for content in a thread of discussion. This is a reason to keep the threads in temporal order, for ease of archiving and retrieval.) If you are posting to a specific thread, then click the "edit" link on the upper right of that section, and please remember to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add relevant contribution to comment sections related to each article section. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perception article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1

To-do list for Perception: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-10-13


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : *Use clearer references and deal with weasel words
  • Expand : *Explain the relationship between perception and consciousness.
Priority 1 (top)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Metaphysics / Epistemology / Science Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Metaphysics
Taskforce icon
Epistemology
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Archiving icon
Archives

Reasons for Rewriting and Style

This article was rewritten with a tacit support from the most of editors. It is likely that some will be considering it in terms of impersonal presentation. However, our perception is a deeply subjective experience and the readers will feel alienated with impersonal presentation. The authors therefore decided to invite his or hers personal, real life, experiences of every reader to fill in the gaps - with style.

The following are only major points that support the article and are open for discussion:

  • Philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers proposed last year an extended mind theory for phenomenal consciousness that is entirely in line with this presentation of perception. The latest expression of their views could be found here: “What a maze-solving oil drop tells us of intelligence”.
  • Peter Russel proposes something similar. His differences with the other two, however, might be stemming from the demonstrated lack of insights about findings in scientific disciplines other than physics. For the latest expression of his views see this video presentation: “Primacy of Consciousness”.
  • The most cited finds in genetics that support this presentation of perception are 1) finding that differences in epigenome between twins grow as they accumulate different experiences and 2) two independent studies that practically replicated Europe’s map by looking into a single letter; almost 30% of the second generation of immigrants had their letter changed when compared with their parents’.
  • Anthropological and sociological finds presented in culture and anthropology related articles are to be incorporated in the near future.
  • Art should also have its say here, especially the performing art of stage acting. It is expected, however, that bridges are yet to be built.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

A Comment on Default and Non-default

Damir Ibrisimovic, I can corroborate the first 2 paragraphs above: when growing up in El Paso, Texas we had the opportunity to see the first license plates with pictures in the Western US, from Wyoming. The picture on the license place featured a cowboy on a bucking bronco and the dramatic silhouette remains in my mind as a vivid first impression (when first introduced, the background was a plain solid beige, I believe, and the silhouette was on the left side of the plate). But now that I live in Wisconsin, I often see the Endangered Species license plate with a wolf's head on it on the left side of the plate. Since my first impression of a license plate with a picture on it was the bucking bronco, as I gaze at the WI license plate, my mind's eye shifts from the bronco to the wolf's head, and the times required to perceive the wolf are as you describe. And yes, the wolf's head and the bucking bronco are of similar dimension and shape on the license plate. Perhaps these two illustrations will help the article -- but as I re-examine this, it is an advantage to show only the first image (to simulate the first impression which somehow remains vivid in memory, for me) and to force people to retrieve the next images (to simulate the re-construction process, which somehow is less vivid than the first impression, for me).

I have often wondered why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before; my own father-in-law once described the process of looking at a yard sign which at first impression morphed from one shape to another shape as he got a better look. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This gives me the opportunity to reconstruct what must be happening as I parse the events which make up my driving experience:
  1. In car, driving.
  2. Car in front of me is close enough for me to see the license plate.
  3. License plate is in its usual spot on the car.
  4. License plate has picture on it (fairly unusual as most plates just have letters and numbers - and yes, I am aware that a Wisconsin car's license plate has a small barn, a small sun, and a small sailboat on it - but that is routine and those small pictures can be ignored, as they are a quarter or a sixth of the area of the protrait of the wolf's head).
  5. I remember the license plate archetype (in your terminology: default percept) which I have learned decades before (bucking bronco) in my mind's eye.
  6. I double-check the picture by zooming in on the wolf position (in your terminology: nonconscious cognition is trying to build up and verify a new expected description out of cognitive elements or percepts) on the plate. -- What some people describe as "it leapt out at me".
  7. Yes, it's the wolf (and yes I am aware that sometimes the picture is a fireman's seal or some university campus seal, or a purple heart medal etc. - but the shapes of those pictures is completely different from the wolf - and yes Wisconsin has an inordinate number of these specialized plates) (in your terminology: our description (brain)).
  8. Attention returns to more urgent events.
Sounds like situated cognition, doesn't it. These events are happening for me at an intuitive rate which is God-given, too fast for me to have described on my own. Because you have described them abstractly as you have, above, I can understand your article because that is what is happening for me, concretely, and not abstractly.
Your rewrite is in fact superior to the current state of the article, of course. But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words? He might not understand it because he doesn't have the background. Would it help if you used the experience I described above as a concrete example? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, there are any number of exemplars which you might use to make the rewrite more real for the reader. Some that come to mind are movies, job interviews, cultural stereotypes, political campaigns, workplace interactions, marriages, parent-child interactions, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(Example added.)

Dear Ancheta,

I have a lot of examples, but I am not so sure how familiar they could be to other people. I am grateful therefore for your and others might have. Together we could work out the best for the article.

All of us here have some strong points in our own areas of expertise. And practically all of us could have a meaningful contribution to the article on perception from a variety of perspectives. This is why I “advertised” the rewriting of this article all over the place.

I also share your sentiment (“why no one ever mentioned this in the encyclopedia before”). And I can explain this. There are simply people who think that they understand something after reading few books on the topic. Unfortunately a kind of egalitarianism brought this here to an extreme. And practically any small ego can bully you. And I had enough of that...

I certainly hope to gather others like you here and start doing the job properly. Egalitarianism yes, but not unsubstantiated or on technicalities.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

A Request for Basic Tenets

Damir Ibrisimovic, Since I have a different basis for action than you, it may be useful to state somewhere the tenets of 'Active Perception Theory' and how it somehow explains perception more adequately than competing descriptions. They need not be in the article at all, for the purpose of the article is to benefit those who are simply trying to learn more about the basics of perception, not for practioners or academics. What is clear is that we are not simply automatons blindly reacting to stimulus, which is the basis of Descartes' theory. For if that were so, there would be uniform response by members of the cohort, and instead people react to sensation in a spectrum of ways. This is observable.

Rather, people exercise defeasible logic in their reaction to sensation. "Is this a horse snuffling me? I'm sleepy and it sounds like one, so I will drift back to sleep" on my camping trip in Yosemite. Later we discovered that was a Black Bear who ate up the food we had cached on a tree limb. Since I was asleep, and had no experience with bear snuffles before, I was not alarmed in my sleepy state. Now if I had been awake, the perception might well have been different on my part and defeasible logic would have kicked in. And if the bear had licked me instead of just sniffing me I would have probably awakened. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(The Basic Tenets added)

Dear Ancheta,

Your examples are terrific and I would love to see them interwoven within the text of the article. I am just about to exemplify non-monotonic bit with imagery of crime scene investigations; a popular topic for stories and TV series. The way how we write could also be a good example for non-monotonic thinking. (Write, scrap, rewrite, scrap etc. etc.) And if you articulate your experiences within, please do.

As for defeasable logic; I noticed some issues in non-monotonic logic in general. The main one is that end results (of an iterative process) are taken as a basis for articulation of formal relations. Essentially, we always have an iterative process as system components tune themselves with each other until a system settles down into one of few possible stable states. (Klaus Mainzer expressed this well in his book: “Thinking in Complexity”. Unfortunately, he was quite defensive in his writing against potential attacks from the orthodox scientists...)

Of course, we can take these potentially stable states and express them as logical relations, but in real life we are never certain about an outcome. (Note an energy release as a system settles down in a stable state.) And simulated complex systems always manage to find a surprise for us. And that would need to be, in my opinion, an endless addition of new logical relations, mostly as exceptions or belief revisions that invalidate some of other assumed relations. And, to me, this is pretty static way to express systems’ dynamics...

I am trying to resolve these issues by introducing emotional and habitual weights. Accumulation of personal experiences could, in general, explain accumulation of exceptions. I am also thinking of including Kolmogorov math to indicate how a critical weight of exceptions forces us to reorganise our knowledge base. I often exemplify this with Ptolemaic system.

How we see does impact (and is reflected in) practically everything we do. However, although I could go into practically any direction to exemplify and detail, I have to balance all of it against clarity of the article. And here I invented a motto for myself: to artfully tell more with less... And I also need to address how we perceive within our vivid dreams... (Hard to stop yourself, isn't it?)

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Preparing for going live.

Comments

The Triangle of Perception

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's message to Congress, December 1, 1862: "What makes a country? First, the land, then the people, then the laws". This paraphrase is by Bernard De Voto. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But perhaps the word "Perception" in the middle of the triangle? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I realized I didn't have the words right, I also realized something about a perception: we only perceive as much as we need to. When I was confronted with the realization that I had read straight past the words to the concepts behind them, I was forced to pay attention to the phrases which made up the concept, and reflect those more faithfully in the labels on the diagram. In other words, when my hierarchy of values kicks in, then my perception of the object becomes more nuanced and accurate. Some people (i.e., me in reading the words) are just not going to care about something until it matters to them. So for example, if a deer is attempting to cross a road, there is the well-known phenomenon of the deer 'freezing' in the headlights of a car, and the deer is likely to stand there until its internal alarms set it free to run away. Another example would then be the spectrum of the diffusion of innovations: first, innovators, then the early adopters, then the early majority, and finally, the late majority, with some laggards never adopting the innovation, because it simply doesn't matter to them. In other words, the triangle explains why some people will never perceive a phenomenon which is visible to others, because one or more of the corners of the triangle is keeping them from perceiving; it is not until they are 'ready' will they perceive. For example, the author of Amazing Grace was blind to the evils of slavery until he saw what he himself had done. In another example, an emperor of China did not perceive that Chinese was a tonal language until a philosopher uttered a sentence composed of the same sound in 4 different tones. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Dear Ancheta,

Job well done with the triangle!

Now about your insight while doing the graphics: spot on. This is why I was thinking about animated graphics. But let me explain this in words with this article as an example.

All of us started from our own subculture; statistics, logic, genetics etc. Consequently, readers who feel comfortable within their own subculture - will have difficulties to read/comprehend parts of this article fully. To overcome this, I have tied my vocabulary to express relations to other comfort zones; enabling the reader to venture into other subcultures. Graphically, this would mean moderate extension of the base line towards cultural angle. Tiny extension of the base line towards genome corner takes ages and I would not worry about that. However, the top of the triangle should move upwards the fastest, because the reader’s own experiences will give plenty of unarticulated meanings to words he/she is reading; facilitating further growth of the triangle.

The best tags to corners would be “genome”, “culture” and “our own” with “experiences” in the middle.

I have been thinking about diffusion of innovations also, but this would double the scope of the article. I must correct your realisation about perception a bit, though. You are only partly right that we perceive only as much as we “need to”. The most of people are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone, but there are those who muster the courage for the leap of faith. And hopefully, this article will encourage few to do so. And when others see it possible, they will follow. And this is the psychology behind the diffusion of innovations...

Thank you very much, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue

Comments

The Article

Overall Comments

  • Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I am not very happy with habit (psychology) article either. The critical insight that our percepts and thoughts are mostly habitual also is missing. Fortunately, I have elaborated on this here and the link to the article is now obsolete. However, we will have to get involved there also.
  • Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Dear Ancheta, I have finalised the drafting. I copied sections we should keep, but we need to tidy them up. I have also removed comments, I have acted upon, to enable easier proofing. The navigations bars would need athropology, sociology and complex systems navs. We might need to create a new nav for Kolmogorov's math. Please feel free to comment, change etc. If you do a significant change in the text, please let me know in the comment below. I will do the same. On Tuesday (my time) and Monday (your time) we will probably be ready to go live. I am writing this message at 12:30PM (my time). If you note the time difference, we could start acting in tandem. Kind regards,
    Damir Ibrisimovic, I am on Central time=07:56PM UTC=--Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I have found the tab on Complex Adaptive System article. We could simply copy it, but I would prefer that we edit it a bit - and I do not know how. At least Norbert Wiener must be dropped from the list of scientists - he completely messed up the concept of information Kolmogorov was wrestling with, for example. Consequently the most in IT industry do not know what they are talking about. And this now includes the general public. And I would not like to propagate so enormous confusion about what is information: talk:information (See my discussion there).

Perception

Historically, perception was considered in terms established by René Descartes: perception → thoughts that lead to a decision (brain) and → action. Closely following Descartes’ thought was a period of automatons, like The Digesting Duck, but more importantly the period of punched cards used to automate textile looms, for example. And from there, there was just a small step left towards our modern computers based upon the principle: input → processing → output.

This picture has been entirely eroded in the second half of the last century that was crowned by seminal works of Richard L. Gregory, Benjamin Libet, Nancy Kanwisher and numerous other cognitive psychologists and neurologists. Aided by mostly non-intrusive equipment (eeg, fMRI etc.) they started to map subjective experiences with records of their physical manifestations. The accumulated finds lead to an inevitable conclusion that we are much more active or subjective in what and how we see than we suspected. Consequently, the previous theory of perception received “passive” as an attribute (PP) and the new, now widely accepted theory received “active” as an attribute. The rest of this article is, therefore, based upon Active Perception Theory (PA).

Comments

Support from Other Disciplines

Finds by cognitive psychologists received complementary support from genetics, sociology, anthropology and other disciplines. But the most surprising support came from the theory about Complex Adaptive Systems (an Artificial Intelligence discipline); especially neural networks. The processes in both bear remarkable similarity and many are now peeking through a keyhole on the door between them. This might well be the time to open this door...

Comments

The Basic Tenets

The Active Perception (PA) changes Descartes’ picture into dynamic interplay between environment ↔ our perception of it (default percepts) ↔ and our description of it (brain). The PA theory was originally conceived by philosopher David Hume. In his exchanges with a friend he explored how would a previously blind person interpret visual sensations? Unfortunately, a blind suddenly made see would be a miracle in his time... However, such cases were made possible in the last century. And Richard L. Gregory was lucky enough to follow up on the real life example of an older blind person suddenly made to see. Remarkably, his observations echoed very much Hume’s conclusions...

In short, PA theory states that we establish a set of more or less vague expectations (default percepts) for what we are about to experience in the next few moments of our lives. These sets are based upon a mental map or description of the place (situation) we are about to be in... And then we start a kind of virtual reality simulation just before the real stuff... As expectations of one moment are confirmed or corrected, the expectations for the following moments grow more specific until their time comes to be quickly confirmed or corrected. And this is much faster than building up the whole picture from the scratch every moment of our life...

Such simulations could be performed well in advance. And with a small ingredient - freedom, they are a solid launching pad for flights of imagination, art, thinking, planning... But, although fast, such simulations are prone to failures. If we do not expect to see a friend, for example, in a busy shopping mall, we may fail to see her waiving and yelling our name. Only later we may learn about our perceptual failure...

Comments

Consciousness

To psychologists, consciousness is like a spotlight cast at very few symbols in the dark sea of non-consciousness. It is not only timed by Dr. Benjamin Libet. Its capacity is also well measured with only seven symbols in the spotlight at the time - the Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two...

It should be noted, though, that philosophers use term consciousness for another phenomenon that is here referred to as phenomenal consciousness or the hard problem of consciousness. While the consciousness (psychologists talk about) can be derived from phenomenal consciousness, we cannot draw any conclusion about phenomenal consciousness from findings psychologists made...

Comments

Memory

In each moment, seven of the most important sensations to us, are translated into symbols within our consciousness with emotional charges behind. The most of other sensations could be recorded non-consciously, but rather as related impressions translated in the emotional charges.

These emotionally charged symbols are stored into the short-term memory, as fresh memories, with good chances to be retained in the long-term memory.

The highly emotionally charged memories are constantly revisited in the context of other (long-term) memories of ours. And we even dream about these fresh memories.

This, constant repetition and verification of our fresh memories, turns them into long-time memories with the weight of repetitions behind them - habit. This iterative process could be well illustrated by the constant, internal repetition of the phone number of a nice girl we just met...

It should be noted that all of our emotions are reflected in the metabolic changes of our metabolism. Such changes are quickly propagated to every single cell of ours and reflected in the epigenome within them. Ultimately, these changes in our epigenome are passed to our offspring to benefit from our experiences...

Comments

Default Percept

Defaults percepts are rather tagged outlines of what we are about to see. And in a shopping mall we do expect to see people, men, women, kids - a vague tagged outlines that can be quickly confirmed by our sensations. Few details for this outlines we can add are features of a good looking woman who attracts our attention. Otherwise, we simply do not bother and swiftly navigate through the crowd letting our attention to be grabbed every now and then by a window, another good looking woman...

However, our default percepts do not only help us to navigate through our physical environment. As a launching pad they are a base for our default (habitual) thoughts and actions. In essence, our navigation through the crowd would be severely impaired if there were not default actions there to avoid collisions. Few drinks, for example, could cause here quite a few collisions... And our feeling of annoyance when inconsiderate people block our way is also reflected in our default thoughts about that situation.

Practically all of our skills are based upon refined default percepts in the profession of our choosing. In a multiparty system voters always assign a more or less stable set of default percepts about each of major parties and candidates. They also weight their sincerity on the basis of their default actions. And politicians know this and they are hard at work to enhance the default imagery about themselves with their words about future actions... And at the same time they are hard at work to erode the default imagery about their opponents...

Ambiguous images
File:Wyoplate2009.jpg
WY license plate

As long our defaults are confirmed all is fine. Our default image of a cube seen from above will be quickly (.2 sec) confirmed in an image on the left. Our default image of a cowboy on a bucking bronco on a Wyoming licence plate on the rights will also be quickly confirmed. Our default expectation that there is signpost over there is also quickly confirmed. Our default expectation that a door is unlocked is also quickly confirmed most of the time.

But what if our defaults are rather vaguely confirmed or even rejected by our senses. A vague confirmation may make us to look and see a cube from below. A default image of a cowboy on a bucking bronco on the licence plate could also be something else. A default expectation of a signpost in the mist could also turn to be something else sometimes sending creeps through our spine. And the expectation of the unlocked door could fail sometimes resulting in a panic attack that prevents us to see that there is “PUSH”, not “PULL” on the door...

But that is rather another, mysterious world of non-defaults…

Comments

Recognition vs. Cognition

Ever got lost awakening in a hotel room? Where am I? This is not my room...

All is fine, when we move around a familiar territory or write on a familiar topic. We do not even think about steps we do when dancing a familiar dance... But what happens when we find ourselves on an unfamiliar hotel room, unfamiliar ground or dancing unfamiliar dance; when we, for example, move into a suburb of another city?

We hesitate. Our eyes try to identify landmarks we were told about. And although hesitant, we are doing here marvellous job. Highly abstract basic perceptual elements quickly establish a sketch we can start to fill in with details. Metaphorically we could list these elementary default percepts as: texture, object, distant, near, vertical, hot, wet, dry, red, round etc. etc. The details that that are filling in the basic sketch also follow a similar path...

How we behave on an unfamiliar territory could be illustrated with a crime scene investigation - a popular topic for movies and TV series. As investigators, we carefully search for "clues" - evidence. As investigators, we "tag" them. Unfortunately we do not have cameras in our brain to take pictures of these clues. As a punishment for this we have to return to the "crime scene" much more often than our TV investigators do; even in our dreams. In our dreams we visit the “crime scene” again and again. We do the same mentally while awake, but mostly nonconsciously and without the advantages of inhibited physical actions we have in our dreams. We also talk to other people about the “crime scene”; just as TV investigators do. Until, finally, the whole “crime scene” starts to make sense and we solve the “case” - the unfamiliar territory becomes familiar and we stop hesitating when moving around.

This hesitance, or start-stop type of perceptual actions, has been indirectly researched by Dr. Benjamin Libet. He was intrigued by the finding of Lüder Deecke and Hans Helmut Kornhuber that a volitional action is preceded by .8 seconds of brain activity. Hey, how come? We act immediately after we consciously decide, don’t we?

Ambiguous images
File:Wisplate2010.jpg
Wisconsin license plate

Intrigued, Dr. Benjamin Libet performed a series of experiments to find precisely when we decide. The surprising conclusion was that we only become conscious of a non-consciously generated urge (default action), to lift a hand for example, .5 seconds after our nonconsciousness “decides” to lift a hand. And at that point we can only veto and abort the initiated, default action.

And this gave us a clue to how a default percept could morph into a surprising non-default percept, but always with a noticeable delay - at least .5 seconds. This is how cube, on the left, viewed from above morphs into cube viewed from below. This is how Wyoming licence plate image on the right morphs from a cowboy on a bucking bronco into the wolf’s head on the Wisconsin licence plate on the right. This is how our default action from “PULL” into non-default “PUSH” brings a sigh of relief. And this is how a sudden change of signpost into a large wings flapping bird can bring a cry to our lips...

Comments

Free Will

The finds of Dr. Benjamin Libet were often grossly misinterpreted, mildly said. Many jumped to a conclusion that we (our consciousness) do not have a free will. Well, things are not as simple as others are putting them... For the beginning we can veto consciously undesireable default percepts...

But most importantly, we do decide consciously to buy a loaf of bread, for example. On familiar territory this decision will prepare sets of default actions and percepts that will take us effortlessly to a bakery. On unfamiliar territory we will have start-stop kind of perceptual actions, but - that's about all. We will still act and see how to find the bakery - acting on our original free will choice about what to do next...

Our free will could be impeded though, by malfunctions in the critical areas of our brain, like hippocampus for example...

Comments

The Scales of the Lady Justice

As in situated cognition we could find ourselves in a wilderness. Our previous experiences (memory) of a farm may start to intermingle with the wilderness and we imagine a farm within it. As our thoughts bounce of the details of the environment, the imagined farm grows more real. As we think when, how, what and where, our imagined farm grows even more real with a doable plan of habitual actions behind. If we do not have all habitual actions needed, we imagine which people might have them - experts like carpenters, plumbers... And then we discuss the when, how, what and where - giving final touches to the plan. And then all we need is “let’s do it” to put all these habitual actions in their motions.

But neither the overall plan nor individual plans within it are perfect. Experienced professionals know this and add additional checks, allow for rescheduling etc. etc. But, not too much - that would be a red tape...

Such balancing act of recognition (defaults) on one side and cognition (non-defaults) on the other - we need in every walk of life. An inexperienced programmer will leap into the coding and get tangled in the web of contradictions between defaults. An inexperienced manager will get tangled in the web of contradictions between defaults or stereotypes and prejudices of the people he manages - and red tapes pop up everywhere; mechanically accounting for as many non-defaults as possible. And the bureaucracy grows to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy...

Our political correctness is also such red tape. It prevents us from expressing some of our prejudices in public - only. Our political correctness lists default vetoes to our consciousness for some of our prejudging defaults. But it does not encourage us to test non-defaults against the real person before us, privately and publicly. And every human being has a potential for countless pleasant surprises... And glass ceilings will start to shatter all around us...

Comments

Non-monotonic logic

We do not only see according to the given outlines, we also think and act according to similar outlines. And these outlines are partly formalised in the non-monotonic logic.

Default Reasoning and Abductive Reasoning could easily be related to default percepts, habitual thoughts and acts. Reasoning about Knowledge indicates how we become aware that sensations do not match our defaults while Belief Revision indicates the process of how we perceive non-default percepts or think or act in a non-habitual way.

The only difference seems to be that we are much more emotional and habitual then we usually suspect. And this is often experienced as a kind of uneasiness in the face of non-default percepts or non-habitual thoughts or actions. Further improvements in non-monotonic logic may well be in adding emotional and habitual weights. Emotional weight could be a ranked importance to an agent, while habitual weight could be expressed as the number of successful direct and indirect, but successful, resolutions of default/habitual percepts, thoughts and actions. Unsuccessful resolutions should result in decreases of both, emotional and habitual weights. Successful resolutions should increase a weight of either. With this we could have an iterative process for Belief Revision relations.

Comments

Kolmogorov Complexity

Russian mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov tried and mostly succeeded to mathematically express how to shorten a description without losing any of its meanings. We also are doing something similar under the weights of exceptions to our default percepts. Regardless of how many billions of neurons we hide in our skull, our memory is still limited. And if we fill all of the “free space on the disk” with exceptions, that’s it. We can forget our “PC”.

Despite all of the free time our consciousness might have; our non-consciousness is all the time busy trying to find a solution for accumulated exceptions and contradictions. And it works pretty much according to the rules Kolmogorov established; ensuring that there will be enough “free disk space” for our future fresh memories...

And each compression of our knowledge always results in a higher level of abstraction...

Comments

The Triangle of Perception

Three corners of perception: genome, culture, personal experience

The developmental psychology established the three corners of perception: genome with its expressions, culture and personal experiences. Through genome we inherit parts of vague expectations. These parts are later complemented with their cultural complementary pairs forming a base for our own experiences. And as we grow into our culture we draw the lines to the third angle, filling up the triangle with our own experiences...

This view is now receiving increased support from genetics, sociology and anthropology. Several studies showed differences in genome and epigenome on the basis of accumulated experiences of our parents and our own accumulated experiences as we live within our culture. Anthropological studies in perceptual differences between cultures, now facilitated by brain scanning equipment, have also provided strong support.

Comments

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's message to Congress, December 1, 1862: "What makes a country? First, the land, then the people, then the laws". This paraphrase is by Bernard De Voto. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But perhaps the word "Perception" in the middle of the triangle? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I realized I didn't have the words right, I also realized something about a perception: we only perceive as much as we need to. When I was confronted with the realization that I had read straight past the words to the concepts behind them, I was forced to pay attention to the phrases which made up the concept, and reflect those more faithfully in the labels on the diagram. In other words, when my hierarchy of values kicks in, then my perception of the object becomes more nuanced and accurate. Some people (i.e., me in reading the words) are just not going to care about something until it matters to them. So for example, if a deer is attempting to cross a road, there is the well-known phenomenon of the deer 'freezing' in the headlights of a car, and the deer is likely to stand there until its internal alarms set it free to run away. Another example would then be the spectrum of the diffusion of innovations: first, innovators, then the early adopters, then the early majority, and finally, the late majority, with some laggards never adopting the innovation, because it simply doesn't matter to them. In other words, the triangle explains why some people will never perceive a phenomenon which is visible to others, because one or more of the corners of the triangle is keeping them from perceiving; it is not until they are 'ready' will they perceive. For example, the author of Amazing Grace was blind to the evils of slavery until he saw what he himself had done. In another example, an emperor of China did not perceive that Chinese was a tonal language until a philosopher uttered a sentence composed of the same sound in 4 different tones. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Ancheta,

Job well done with the triangle!

Now about your insight while doing the graphics: spot on. This is why I was thinking about animated graphics. But let me explain this in words with this article as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibrisim (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All of us started from our own subculture; statistics, logic, genetics etc. Consequently, readers who feel comfortable within their own subculture - will have difficulties to read/comprehend parts of this article fully. To overcome this, I have tied my vocabulary to express relations to other subcultures; enabling the reader to venture into other subcultures. Graphically, this would mean moderate extension of the base line towards cultural angle. Tiny extension of the base line towards genome corner takes ages and I would not worry about that. However, the top of the triangle should move upwards the fastest, because the reader’s own experiences will give plenty of unarticulated meanings to words he/she is reading; facilitating further growth of the triangle.

The best tags to corners would be “genome”, “culture” and “our own” with “experiences” in the middle.

I have been thinking about diffusion of innovations also, but this would double the scope of the article. I must correct your realisation about perception a bit, though. You are only partly right that we perceive only as much as we “need to”. The most of people are reluctant to step out of their comfort zone, but there are those who muster the courage for the leap of faith. And hopefully, this article will encourage few to do so. And when others see it possible, they will follow. And this is the psychology behind the diffusion of innovations...

Thank you very much, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also move the picture next to Our Own Corner section, for there will all three components fall in their places to the reader. I'll try to find some wording that will prompt the reader to contemplate the picture. Thanks, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The Genetics' Corner

In the last two decades our attention has been drown towards expressions of our genome; i.e. epigenome. It has been shown that expressions of the same genetic sequence change as we accumulate our experiences. This has shaken the whole world of geneticists who believed that our genes are set in the stone. And who believed that only “errors in copying” (mutations) were a driving force behind evolution.

Further research has indicated the impact of our physical and not so physical environment - i.e. culture. Two independent researches looked at a single-letter within a gene sequence and practically replicated Europe's map. Research in hyperlexia has also indicated that more detailed parts of our literacy can impact our genetic makeup.

The current efforts are focused at the role of the combined parents’ epigenome might play during fertilisation. And the tentative expectation is that it does play a big part as parents’ genome halves are combined into the child’s. Another branch of research is focused at probable impact mother’s epigenome (experiences) on foetus.

A bigger picture is also being now contemplated. The evolution is now being looked at through the prism of organism's experiences within an environment. And although there are no instantly obvious changes, the positive and negative experiences of an organism within an environment might be behind changes in physical appearances...

Comments

The Culture's Corner

The assessment that there was a shift away from the transfer of the accumulated knowledge by genes only is not new. It was rather obvious. While calves start running around few hours or days after birth, our kids need almost a year to start to crawl around...

But this was just an educated guess. We did not have enough evidence to justify and explain fully the transfer of knowledge by cultural means. For a while such transfer of knowledge was only indicated by developmental psychologists. But the last two decades with the aid of brain scanning and other newly developed equipment changed all this. A strong link with genetics is now established and virtually, all of our culture started to reveal itself in activities of our brains.

Ever thought how South-East Asians seem to be enigmatic? Ever thought that we might be puzzling to them also? And both impressions seem valid on the surface, for each of the two cultures learned to search for emotional clues at different places. While Caucasians manifest emotions mostly around eyes and mouth and look for them there, South-East Asians manifest and look for the same clues in the body language.

South East Asians will also see in a picture a jungle (texture) that happens to have an elephant in it. Caucasians tend to see in the same picture the elephant (object) first and the jungle as a background. This might seem as a minor difference, but the cognitive processes in the background are entirely reversed.

Comments

And Our Own Corner

From the moment of our conception, we start to accumulate our own perceptual experiences that will form a launching pad for our physical activities after our birth. Unfortunately, and probably because of dramatic changes we undergo during our early childhood, our memories from this period are rare and sporadic. So what we did and experienced then is better left to others to tell us, especially experts...

As we grow older, more and more experiences grow harder and harder to recall. But they do stay in the background we call non-consciousness, unless something dramatic happens to us that forces us to re-evaluate them. And even this re-evaluation could be performed non-consciously and in our dreams without us even noticing that. And every now and then we end up with our experiences (knowledge) consolidated and more stable to face a new day...

Although we often do not notice this consciously, gradual but dramatic changes in our perceptual base do happen occasionally. This could be seen in two individuals falling in love. The manifestation of this process could be seen in the frequent replacements of “I” (me, individual) with “us” (a greater whole). The first time parents also manifest similar dramatic changes of perspective - suddenly their whole world is centred on their child.

We may have been born into one of many farmers’ subcultures. And a teacher may have helped us to discover a whole new world in biology, for example - another subculture. And our perceptual baseline, as in graphics on the right, inched a bit towards cultural angle as we study biology; while our own angle shoots upward under pressure of newly accumulated experiences...

And we may be here in a similar position reading this article and discovering new subcultures - math, logic, psychology are just a few. And with each visit to another subculture we add to our own experiences pushing the angles of the triangle further away... And our own angle might be shooting upwards, right now - to the moon...

Note also that our perceptual baseline is also inching towards genome angle as we shoot upwards towards the moon. This is, however, reflected mostly in our epigenome - and such changes are very slow in time...

Comments

Could we have a simpple animated gif or png of a triangle of our experiences growing from the genetic and cultural base? I have a clear picture of it, but do not know how to do that in Misplaced Pages. Thanks for all help. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Relations to the conscious and to the subconscious added in the reference. Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a disconnect. When I read the description before I was seeing it statically. But if your concept is a flow from two corners to the top, then this picture does not follow from the words which I read. Logically, there could also be a flow from genetic & personal to cultural. I would visualize this as a flow in another direction than from bottom to top. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Ancheta, I hope that my reply above and the description in the above section answered your "disconnect". Of course, you are right - all angles are impacted. Thanks, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Early Development

Foetal stage of our perceptual development is the least known stage. However, for ethical reasons, rare experiments have shown that a foetus reacts to a disturbing sound, for example. With the repeated exposure, the foetus adapts, i.e. is not disturbed by the sound. And the foetus remembers, for few weeks later the foetus will not be disturbed either. It is therefore assumed that in our foetal stage we start to accumulate non-visual sensations and start growing our perceptual base, i.e. experiences.

Our early development, after birth, is rather observed and explained by others, especially by trained experts like developmental psychologists and pediatricians. As babies we are exposed to our physical environment under protection of our parents. And as babies do, we explore it with all of our senses - including putting toys into our mouth. And we indicate some basic communicational skills with our sounds full of emotions; sounds other babies and our moms intuitively interpret well.

As babies we later try to translate what we perceived into our own action to - sit for example. And it takes quite a while until such deliberate actions of ours become natural, i.e. habitual. Slowly we start to crawl also, and it is amazing how proficient we were in this skill. Another entirely separate world - speech is also being mastered. But we forgot that, for this stage was rather a stage of exploring and developing habitual actions, like waking, that will carry us around within our environment. At this stage we are also quite proficient in forming mental maps also, but planning further ahead is still out of our reach. To reach it we need to change radically and be born into the world of the social aspect of our consciousness. This is probably the reason why our memories before our second birth (period between age four and six) are so rare...

Comments
Social Aspects

The first signs of the social aspect of our consciousness are fostered by our parents; nudging us to share toys, for example. And reluctantly, we start to see ourselves as other’s would. In our mind’s eye we see ourselves as others would see us more frequently until such perspective becomes habitual. In this stage, other strange feelings start to germinate, like empathy for example. Our previous need for a close physical contact to interpret emotions of others is also gradually replaced with reading emotions from words and physical actions of others...

But these are only beginnings in the development of the social aspect of our consciousness. We are still far from really seeing ourselves as our parents would. To really see ourselves as our parents would we have to become parents ourselves; or at least fully committed to a child. And to really see ourselves as our parents would we need to discover that we behave towards our child almost exactly as our parents did towards us...

But the development of the social aspect of our consciousness is not complete yet. We need to see ourselves as people of another culture or religion would. And that seems to be a never ending story... But there is a hope. If we build into our cultures perspectives like these, our kids will have much easier job here.

Comments
What Could Go Wrong

Apart from handicaps like autism, many things can go wrong, especially during development of our social aspect of consciousness. If physical proximity of our parents is not frequent or if it does not radiate positive emotions, we could grow reluctant towards experiences human touch brings. And this could result in serious impediments in our future social life.

Our parents, maybe under the stress of hardship, could neglect the development of the social aspect of our consciousness. Consequently, empathy and sharing may be a strange feeling to us. And the most of such deviations usually ends up in prisons... Only harmless deviations that are tolerated by the society do not...

Our reading of emotions from words and actions of others, especially our parents, could also be misleading. A son of a bashed mother, for example, might get an impression that outbursts of violence are outbursts of love. A daughter of a bashed mother might also form a similar impression. And such impressions could stay with us for the rest of our lives. The son will bash his wife and the wife will be disappointed if she is not bashed. And the cycle of domestic violence repeats itself...

Comments

Reality?

How certain we are, after all this, that what we see is real?

Our reality is actually the hard problem of consciousness in philosophy. If we look at two apples close enough, we will quickly start to notice more and more differences. And the closer we look, the more differences we find; until we realise that there is infinity of differences; until we realise that each of the apples is actually unique. And how to compare unique phenomena?

Statistics also has a really hard problem here. A unique phenomenon is statistically impossible – 1/∞ = 0. To bypass this problem we have now Kolmogorov's zero-one law.

And the answer is quite simple. Both apples have common properties; properties we cannot find in their atoms - emergent properties; like saltines of salt that looks and feels nothing like properties of sodium or chlorine. And we can count the same emergent properties of otherwise unique phenomena... And shared properties of apples enable us to count them... And we grow into skilled mathematicians... Can we have a simpler number theory?...

But, are those emergent properties real?...

Comments

Theories of Perception

Comments

See also

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end

Comments

References

Comments

Further Reading

Comments

Notes

  1. ^ Other contemporary theories are rather functional aspects of the Active Perception Theory.
  2. The process of detailing our expectations could be compared with expectation-maximisation algorithm in statistics.
  3. Terms unconscious and subconscious are often used to describe non-conscious. However, ambiguity of these terms do not allow for the clarity the term non-conscious offers.
  4. Word “see” is used as a metaphor for perception.
  5. Figures presented in the article are averages. The ranges of figures are used only when additional clarity is required.
  6. A gene epsilon 4 is probably implicated in enabling some functions of Kolmogorov-like math. The gene was previously linked to Alzheimer’s disease, but is now considered as essential for better memory and understanding (Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.108183).
  7. Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature07331) & Current Biology (DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.049)

Comments

External links


Metaphysics
Theories
Concepts
Metaphysicians
Notable works
Related topics
Epistemology
Epistemologists
Theories
Concepts
Related articles

Template:Aesthetics navigation

Mental processes
Cognition
Perception
Memory
Other

ar:إدراك حسي bg:Възприятие ca:Percepció cs:Vnímání da:Perception de:Wahrnehmung et:Taju es:Percepción eo:Percepto fa:ادراک fr:Perception ko:지각 (심리학) hy:Ըմբռնում hr:Percepcija ia:Perception it:Percezione he:תפיסה ka:აღქმა lt:Suvokimas nl:Perceptie ja:知覚 no:Persepsjon pl:Spostrzeganie pt:Percepção qu:Sut'i musyay ru:Восприятие sq:Orientimi njerëzor simple:Perception sk:Perceptívnosť sr:Перцепција fi:Havaitseminen sv:Perception tr:Algı uk:Сприйняття ur:آگاہی vi:Tri giác zh:知觉

Comments

Removed Sections

  1. Perception and Reality
  2. Perceptual Threshold (to be addressed in the percept article)

Your Turn

Dear all,

The drafting is over. Please comment. General impressions about the draft will also be welcome.

Now, the hard part of referencing, further readings & external links. All suggestions are welcome.

I would also invite readers, from within the article, positioned at relevant discussion and real life examples, like Ancheta’s, in an introductory section at this talk page. If you have a better alternative, it will be appreciated. (Would be nice to have something like blog.)

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry Ancheta. I think that the deleted bit is now irrelevant. If you think that it still is, please reverse the change. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) )

By custom, even though we edit the article page directly, we customarily leave the talk page entries written by others alone. That would be the advantage of using Flagged Revisions with locking of the Stable version. Out of respect for your exposition I actually do not mind that my reactions were covered up because they can always be reinstated, if need be. I am actually uneasy, as you know. As it stands, the history still reveals the position of the editors at the time of the edits, so they are knowable in principle .
Dear Ancheta,
I would like to inform you that I had and still have quite a few Jewish colleagues and friends with whom I can speak quite frankly even about some typically Jewish issues. I cannot therefore really understand your, rather default, reaction induced by political correctness that prejudiced my words. There is no prejudice in science. Mel was simply drunk, bursting out his prejudices like any drunkard does. End of story? No, another storm of prejudices took place based upon political correctness.
But I can now understand that I could expect much worse prejudices when the article is published. Psyche is much more sensitive tabo than sex, for example. I will therefore accept flagged revision template and write the third draft without Mel’s example.
I was hoping to shortcut developmental stage with his rather educational example, for the article is already too long. I will also have to generalise without the real life examples. Hopefully, I will find a form in which the reader can find own experiences to support it.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


But just so you know, that's why editors are leaving your edits on the talk page alone; it is customary. However, if these drafts hit the article page, there is no reason that they would stand as you would wish them to appear, because it is just as customary to treat the article as a contribution by everyone, to be edited at will. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have archived the talk page in anticipation that you will refactor it to support the rewrite. After you start the refactoring I can insert the links. Thank you for your contribution. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point here, but you have just demonstrated an example of saying "A" and doing "B". I actually know how to fix some of the issues in the drafts, but according to the General Rules which you have recently interpolated I ought not to until you are done, as if you were the only editor; you are demonstrating one of the problems in our human cognitive style; we interpolate and back-annotate so that it becomes impossible for us to debug problems in a serial, understandable fashion, and a Kolmogorov zero-one law transition takes place (read revolution). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ancheta,
As with Mel’s example, I will probably admit that I might be saying A while doing B. I know that I am not perfect and that what I am calling for might appear inhibitory. But I am calling for comments all of the time.
The problem, as I see it, seems to be that I am calling for agreements first and above all. I understand that editors here are not used to such practice and might feel inhibited, but I have strong reasons for insisting on agreement.
I have witnessed Misplaced Pages’s articles losing their coherence beyond recognition. What is actually happening is that, although locally good, interventions of one editor sneak in contradictions with the rest of the text. Over time the accumulated contradictions endanger comprehendability of the whole article.
It is natural that everybody has his/hers own view on a topic. However, different views are never perfect and often hide potential conflicts that can become visible only by seeking an agreement first and above all. Sooner or later the hidden conflicts will become apparent and a grumbling reconciliation will find its form in the articulated change or addition.
As you said earlier, it is like being tied to a stake and holding your ground - but with a difference. It is better to seek common ground first and above all. As Sun-tzu said “winners win first and then go to war; losers go to war first and then seek how to win”.
I am open to suggestions, criticism and everything else that could enhance the article. And I will, probably grumblingly, accept the most, but not before I look at every aspect of the issue raised. This is why I have added comment heading below each section of the article. I will also add comment heading for the article overall.
I am calling again for comments. If I am inhibitory, please forgive me. But consider also a possibility that the inhibition might be self imposed...
Also, thank you Ancheta for reminding me of Kolmogorov’s zero-one law. As I understand it, it was articulated to bypass a really big issue in statistics, as big as hard problem of consciousness is in philosophy. Statistically, a unique phenomenon is impossible or 1/∞=0. I will probably include a reference in the Reality section.
I am still looking where to place your suggestion for reference to situated cognition. Basic Tenets section seems the best. I am missing wording for it, though. If you have a wording, please place it in the comment below.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
To all editors: previous history of this talk page is archived above. Damir Ibrisimovic has kindly taken the lead in keeping this article vital and up-to-date. If you have contributions, the encyclopedia welcomes them. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Dear all,

In the following few days, I will rewrite the article. You may have noticed that I do not have many inline citations. I have opted instead for inline links to other articles and external links. This would offer to the reader (directly and indirectly) almost half of Misplaced Pages to navigate through. And other articles have plenty of further readings and inline citations to offer. External links were used only when I couldn’t find adequate content on Misplaced Pages. And I am now contemplating few new articles, or changes to the existing ones, to fill in the gaps.

I am still unconvinced that the proposed flagged revision template is suitable in this case. And although there is not much echo here, I suspect that there will be enough other editors interested to keep this article stable until the content sinks in. I will therefore repeat invitation to other, directly implicated projects to at least display their banner here. I will therefore do the following in the next few days:

  1. Delete the irrelevant history on this talk page.
  2. Remove irrelevant bits from the relevant discussion and structure it.
  3. Structure the draft as it should be in the article.
  4. Implement some minor changes in the draft.
  5. Call for final comments.
  6. Implement changes that may result from a discussion.
  7. Rewrite the article.
  8. Remove/edit the discussion made irrelevant by rewriting the article. (I really like Ancheta’s example and would like to have it published as reader’s comment. Not so sure where though and would like to have her signature wherever we place it in an edited form. Open for discussion.)

Some of the stuff above could be executed concurrently. Other is tightly linked in the sequence and requires major editing. And hare I have identified a problem with revision log. It seems that it cannot handle too many changes in one go. Few times I had to reverse changes I made because large chunks of the draft were lost. Fortunately, I implement the changes first in the Word format of the article and redoing the changes in a piecemeal fashion was not a too big hassle. However, changes to the article and this talk page involve directly Misplaced Pages software. If you do not have a solution for my problem, I will have to do it in a piecemeal fashion and I will ask you for patience until I notify you that I finalised the changes.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: This message is important and I do not want it to be lost in the history. Please, sign below as a confirmation that you read it. I'll suspend my work untill I see few signatures here. Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Final Steps

Daer Ancheta,

You might be in the position to call upon best editors worldwide. We do need different perspectives to finalise the article. However, I would not like to wait forever...

I have opted in Further Reading for online retailers. However this could be used as promotional tool by specific online retailers and there could be a contract with Misplaced Pages re this. Could you see if there is a preferred online retailer?

I have contemplated the following going live strategy:

  • I would publish the article worldwide and wait few days until the article is replicated. In these few days we will have to be vigilant, though.
  • After the article is replicated we could move under umbrella of the flagged revisions and pickup some jewels for discussion.
  • I guess that from then on we could lose some valuable feedback. Could we have a proxy Percept page to pick up these?

I doubt that only two of us could furnish the article properly. The scope of the article is simply too vast. The above approach would provide us with references, further readings etc. much faster.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't log in

Dear Ancheta,

I have asked for adminship and got a reply that I need to log in. But I cannot log in because my id (dibrisim) and password are not recognised. Am I doing something wrong?

I saw however the seeded discussion page.

I will suggest though, that we finish all here, backup the discussion and newly published article and then seed the flagged revision version.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

First, create your dibrisim account on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki site; it is a good idea to enable your email as backup access.
Next, login to the Flagged Revisions site with your Meta-Wiki id.
Finally, submit the request as you have tried already. The bureaucrat can then help you. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ancheta,
Thanks. I thought that I only need priviledges..
I am now restructuring the text for an easer flow of thoughts furing the reading. I have also tried to articulate your example, but cudn't turn the file into an image. Please note that we need to repeat images in two sections now. In your case, we need wolf's head plate example in the second section.
Please, review and comment. If you are happy how I addressed your suggestins, remove comments. If you are not happy, complain.
I have only one new section to replace stimuli vs meaning section. I think that I could finish it tomorrow.
And then we could decide what next. I have suggested (above) that we go live here, wait a couple of days and then move under the umbrella. If we can have the protected and the unprotected page, we could pick up valuable comments from the unprotected and worke them out on the protected. The backup and restore should do the rest untill feedback stops trickling.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories: