The DOI matches its Crossref record; 153 of the 181 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 68 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Interface Theory of Perception
Open accessAbstract
Perception is a product of evolution. Our perceptual systems, like our limbs and livers, have been shaped by natural selection. The effects of selection on perception can be studied using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms. To this end, we define and classify perceptual strategies and allow them to compete in evolutionary games in a variety of worlds with a variety of fitness functions. We find that veridical perceptions--strategies tuned to the true structure of the world--are routinely dominated by nonveridical strategies tuned to fitness. Veridical perceptions escape extinction only if fitness varies monotonically with truth. Thus, a perceptual strategy favored by selection is best thought of not as a window on truth but as akin to a windows interface of a PC. Just as the color and shape of an icon for a text file do not entail that the text file itself has a color or shape, so also our perceptions of space-time and objects do not entail (by the Invention of Space-Time Theorem) that objective reality has the structure of space-time and objects. An interface serves to guide useful actions, not to resemble truth. Indeed, an interface hides the truth; for someone editing a paper or photo, seeing transistors and firmware is an irrelevant hindrance. For the perceptions of H. sapiens, space-time is the desktop and physical objects are the icons. Our perceptions of space-time and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth and guide adaptive behaviors. Perception is an adaptive interface.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that natural selection shapes perception toward fitness rather than truth, so veridical perception is not the default outcome of evolution. It supports this with evolutionary games, genetic algorithms, and formal models, concluding that perception is better understood as a species-specific interface that guides adaptive action.
Key findings
- In evolutionary games, strict interface strategies tuned to payoffs usually drive naïve realist and critical realist strategies extinct; realists survive only when payoff varies monotonically with resource quantity.
- In Mark’s genetic algorithm, after 500 generations robots evolved one of two payoff-tuned color strategies: squares with 0, 1, 9, or 10 cans seen as red and others green, or the reverse; a truth-tuned split would have been uninformative about payoff.
- The formal Computational Evolutionary Perception framework separates the objective world \(W\) from representational spaces \(X\) and \(Y\), introduces perceptual channels and a fitness function, and models perception-decision-action loops rather than assuming \(X = W\).
- The Invention of Symmetry Theorem and its space-time corollary show that an observer’s perceptual space can have rich, predictable structure—even Euclidean or space-time-like structure—without the objective world sharing those symmetries.
Methods
- The authors define five classes of perceptual strategy: omniscient realist, naïve realist, critical realist, hybrid realist, and interface strategy, with formal measurable-space and Markovian-kernel definitions.
- They use evolutionary game theory, including the replicator equation and Monte Carlo simulations, to model competition among perceptual strategies under different payoff functions and environments.
- They also use genetic algorithms: Mitchell’s Robby simulation (12×12 grid, 200 robots, 1000 generations, 100 foraging runs of 200 actions) and Mark’s modification (up to 10 cans per square, two perceived colors, 2^11 = 2048 possible perceptual strategies, 500 generations).
Limitations
- Stated: evolutionary games assume infinite populations and complete mixing; the authors say this could be an artifact but consider it unlikely, and they call for checks using finite populations and evolutionary graph theory.
- Stated: natural selection yields satisficing, not optimal, solutions; the genetic algorithms use simplified, abstract worlds and fixed or limited perceptual spaces.
- Evident from the text: the claims about human perception are extrapolated from simulations and formal arguments rather than direct empirical tests of human perceptual evolution; the paper also notes that some interface-theory predictions are counterintuitive and not yet falsified.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
166 Own interpretation · 43 No basis given · 17 No full text of the sources · 7 Sources not found · 6 Not checked yet · 5 Own result · 3 Partly supported · 2 Supported so far · 1 Supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Specifically, because a Bayesian observer must rely on assumptions of statistical regularities in the world (e.g., light tends to come from overhead), it will necessarily make the wrong scene interpretation whenever it is placed in a context where its assumptions happen to be violated”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Limitations of the standard Bayesian framework
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kleffner & Ramachandran, 1992 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper describes an overhead-light assumption in shape-from-shading perception and shows that it can affect whether a shape appears convex or concave (opening section; page not supplied). It does not characterize the observer as Bayesian or establish that a violated assumption necessarily produces a wrong interpretation in every context. The Discussion (page not supplied) says the overhead-light assumption can be overridden by other image cues. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The product of the likelihood and prior-the posterior distribution over scenes, given the image y 0 -thus strongly favors some scene interpretations over others”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > The standard Bayesian framework for vision
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kersten, Mamassian & Yuille, 2004 source
Section 2.1 states that the posterior probability is proportional to the product of the prior and likelihood. Its Figure 2 example shows that this combination can favor some scene interpretations over others, with the posterior peaking at the most probable interpretation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Knill & Richards, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mamassian, Landy & Maloney, 2002 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“both predictions are made by the standard BCopenhagen^interpretation of quantum theory and by more recent interpretations, such as quantum Bayesianism (Allday 2009;Fuchs 2010).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Allday 2009 source
- Partly supportedcites Fuchs 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section IV (pp. 10–12) describes how quantum Bayesianism uses the Born rule to assign probabilities to measurement outcomes, supporting its ability to make quantum predictions. The citing sentence does not identify what “both predictions” are, and the passages do not establish that quantum Bayesianism and the Copenhagen interpretation make those two particular predictions. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Perceiving agents can be combined, in several mathematically precise ways, to create new perceiving agents that are not reducible to the original agents (Hoffman and Prakash 2014).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoffman and Prakash 2014 source
The Combination Problem section gives constructive directed and undirected join theorems for creating a new conscious agent from existing agents. It also says the new agent can have properties the constituent agents lack; Objections and Replies describes a quantifiable sense in which an undirected combination is not reducible to a simple product of the originals. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, it can be embedded in a mathematically rigorous theory of idealism (Hoffman 2008;Hoffman and Prakash 2014).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hoffman 2008
- Supportedcites Hoffman and Prakash 2014 source
The interface-theory section treats space-time and physical objects as perceptual icons. The ‘Definition of conscious agents’ and ‘Conscious realism’ sections then develop a rigorous mathematical formalism in which consciousness is fundamental and the world consists entirely of conscious agents. This supports the claim that the interface theory can be embedded in such a theory, without asserting that the hypothesis is proven. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that veridical perceptions-strategies tuned to the true structure of the world-are routinely dominated by nonveridical strategies tuned to fitness.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Veridical perceptions escape extinction only if fitness varies monotonically with truth.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The only situation in which realists have a chance against interface strategies is when payoff varies monotonically with resource quantity, i.e., when truths and payoffs are roughly the same thing.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marion 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mark et al. 2010 source
- Not matchedcites Mark 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increasing costs for information and computation, or adding dispersion to the perceptual maps, generally makes matters worse for naïve realists and critical realists.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marion 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mark et al. 2010 source
- Not matchedcites Mark 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“From Monte Carlo simulations of many versions of this game the pattern is clear: strict interface strategies that are tuned to fitness routinely drive naïve realist and critical realist strategies to extinction (Marion 2013;Mark et al. 2010;Mark 2013).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marion 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mark et al. 2010 source
- Not matchedcites Mark 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 62
- It may state two separate claims as one. 70
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“According to these interpretations an electron, for instance, has no position when it is not observed and the state of the electron does not, in general, allow one to predict the specific position one will find when making a position measurement, i.e., no causal account can be given for the precise measurement obtained.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Allday 2009 source
- Partly supportedcites Fuchs 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST” (pp. 6–7), Fuchs says measurement consequences are generally incompletely predictable and describes an outcome as something new that comes into the world. But the paper does not establish the categorical claim that an unobserved electron has no position: “THE ESSENCE OF BELL'S THEOREM, QBISM STYLE” (p. 15) presents a system's lack of a definite premeasurement value as one of two positions under discussion. Nor does unpredictability establish that no causal account of a precise result can be given. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It's a strict interface strategy, because the mapping from resource quantities to colors is not a homomorphism.For instance, some resource quantities that map to green are smaller than all resource quantities that map to blue (green bar on the left), but other resource quantities that map to green are greater than all resource quantities that map to blue (green bar on the right).”
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary games · plain
“This strategy is an efficient communication channel for information about payoffs but a poor channel for truth.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary games · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the resources are uniformly distributed then this critical realist, given its perceived color, can optimally estimate the true quantity of resources.”
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary games · plain
“However, it cannot optimally estimate the payoffs.If it sees green, then the payoff could range from nearly 100 to less than 25; if it sees yellow, it's exactly the same-green and yellow are redundant.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary games · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, the robots wield a strategy that sees high payoff squares as green, and low payoff squares as red, or vice versa.This perceptual strategy provides the information required for effective foraging and is favored by the genetic algorithm.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we saw in the example in Fig. 5 above, it is possible to have a perceptual channel (a composition of a message construction kernel and a transfer kernel) that is good at communicating information about fitness but bad at communicating information about truth, and vice versa.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolution of perceptual channels
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if you both see cube A at the same time, your cube A experiences are not numerically identical.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If you and a friend are both looking at Fig. 4, and she experiences cube A while you experience cube B, then clearly your cube experiences are not numerically identical.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is behind my screen that triggers it to display a Porsche is a complex tangle of code and transistors that does not resemble a Porsche.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yes, my chances of rendezvousing with you are better if I know the truth about where you are, just as my chances of deleting a text file are better if I know the truth about where the icon of the text file is on my desktop interface.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Let X = {x,x′} and S = ℕ, the natural numbers.Again, let the group be ℤ 2 .Leta.(x,s) = (x′,s+3) and a.(x′,s) = (x,s).Then a.a.(x,s) = (x,s+3)≠e.(x,s)= (x,s).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here is a toy example of an agent's G acting on W in such a way that there is a bona-fide group action of G on X and we always have g.s∈S g.x whenever s∈S x , yet there is no group action on W as a whole: W is not a G-set.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the Porsche on my screen is not numerically identical to the Porsche on your screen.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this example, A is not 1:1, but it is not at all hard to generate examples where Ais 1:1, as the next example shows.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Suppose that all fibres S x (see the proof of the Invention of Symmetry Theorem) are the same set, S say.Then W=X×S: the world is a Cartesian product.If X is a Gset, let the action of g∈G on (x,s) be given by g.(x,s) = (g.x,s).This is a group action on W, but it is trivial on the fibers and is certainly not transitive on the whole of W, which is thus not a G-set.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Your cube A experience is not numerically identical to your cube B experience.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Evolution by natural selection can be studied using mathematical tools, such as evolutionary game theory, evolutionary graph theory, and genetic algorithms”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it always seems necessary to model the probabilities of various perceptions and how these probabilities vary with states of the world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perceptual strategies
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, perceptual systems that evolve by natural selection need not be optimal in structure and need not deliver optimal information, just information sufficient for survival and reproduction.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“a broad consensus has emerged among perceptual scientists: Natural selection has shaped our perceptions to be, in the typical case, accurate depictions of reality, especially of those aspects of reality that are critical for our survival.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
“Yet there is consensus among perceptual scientists that natural selection has shaped the perceptions of H. sapiens to be, in the normal case, veridical.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Palmer 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Marr (1982)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Trivers (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Evolutionary games have the power to model frequencydependent selection, in which the fitness of strategies is not fixed, but instead varies with the proportion of individuals in the population that employ each strategy”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We need a definition of perceptual strategy that's broad enough to include all relevant strategies-otherwise our evolutionary games and genetic algorithms might inadvertently overlook viable strategies.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perceptual strategies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a nonlinear payoff function is quite common: Not enough water and one dies of thirst; too much and one drowns; somewhere in between is just right.Similarly for salt and a variety of other resources.Indeed, for organisms that must maintain homeostasis of a wide variety of variables, one can expect many nonmonotonic payoff functions.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note, in particular, that in the standard Bayesian framework summarized above, space X plays two distinct roles.First, X corresponds to the set of objective world states.Second, X corresponds to the space of interpretations (or hypotheses) from among which the visual system must select.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Limitations of the standard Bayesian framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fitness is a function of the objective world.However, a fitness function depends not just on the objective world but also on the organism, its state, and an action.”
- Also stated in: § Interface theory of perception · plain
“There's no simple relation between fitness and truth, although many perceptual researchers assume otherwise.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Interface theory of perception · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We cannot assume that the properties of X correspond to properties of the objective world W. In other words, if we find some structure on X, it does not follow from this that W necessarily has that structure as well.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Computational Evolutionary Perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it's likely that veridical strategies never enter the playing field.They're so unfit that they're not worth trying.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“evolutionary pressure to evolve the representational space X itself, rather than just the perceptual channel to the fixed representational space X.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolution of representational spaces
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The likelihood of the scene x corresponds to the probability of obtaining the image y 0 from scene x; it is therefore a measure of the extent to which scene x is consistent with-or Bcan explain^-image y 0 .”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > The standard Bayesian framework for vision
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An obvious way to increase the expected-fitness payout is to Btweak^a perceptual channel P X appropriately while keeping the representational space X fixed.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolution of perceptual channels
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our perception of space-time is analogous to the desktop, and our perception of objects and their properties is analogous to the icons on the desktop.Just as the language of desktops and icons is the wrong language for describing the true structure of the computer, so also the language of space-time and physical objects is the wrong language for describing the true structure of the objective world”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standard definition of illusory perceptions is, however, based on an incorrect understanding of perception and its evolution.It assumes that evolution has shaped our perceptions to be, in the normal case, veridical.But evolution has done no such thing.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Payoffs and truth are different, unless payoff functions happen to vary monotonically with truth.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Possibly, but unlikely, because the core reason that interface strategies dominate realist strategies is that, when payoffs are not monotonic with truths, interface strategies can be tuned entirely to the right information whereas realist strategies are necessarily tuned to the wrong information.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, P is not a homomorphism of any structures intrinsic to W, other than the event structure required for probability, so that no structural relationships among our perceptions are literally true of the world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we cannot expect, in general, that payoff functions vary monotonically with truth, because (1) monotonic functions are a (unbiased) measure zero subset of the possible payoff functions, and (2) even if they weren't, the ubiquitous biological need for homeostasis militates against them.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They diverge if the relevant payoff functions are nonmonotonic; indeed they diverge with unbiased probability one.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prior probability captures the visual system's implicit knowledge, based on phylogenetic and ontogenetic experience, that certain scene interpretations are more probable a priori than others.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > The standard Bayesian framework for vision
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, there is no assumption in our framework that X = W, i.e., that X contains somewhere within it a true description of the state of the objective world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Computational Evolutionary Perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it would be wrong to conclude that therefore all perceptions are illusory.They are not.They usually guide our behaviors quite well.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, X is not a subset of W, so that none of our perceptual experiences are literally true of the world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In CEP, X and Y are simply two representational spaces-neither is assumed to correspond (or be isomorphic) to W.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Computational Evolutionary Perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thiswould be convenient, but unfortunately it's not true.Fitness functions are more complex and versatile than that and rarely track truth.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Geisler and Diehl (2002) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We must take our perceptions seriously not because they reveal the true structure of the world, but because they are tuned, by natural selection, to fitness.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies of perceptual evolution using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms render a clear verdict: Natural selection discards veridical perceptions and promotes interface strategies tuned to fitness.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The simplified evolutionary games and genetic algorithms discussed in the paper adequately model the evolution of human perceptual strategies.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In similar fashion, says the interface theory of perception, our perceptions have been shaped by natural selection to make it easier for us to act effectively in the world, so that we can survive and reproduce (or, more accurately, so that our genes can survive and reproduce).Our perceptions have not been shaped to make it easy to know the true structure of the world but instead to hide its”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The simplified evolutionary games and genetic algorithms discussed in the paper adequately model the evolution of human perceptual strategies.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although there is some evidence of such dedicated representations in the evolution of vision (e.g., dorsal versus ventral pathways in the primate cortex), adopting this strategy indiscriminately can lead to quickly proliferating representational spaces-which would quickly become untenable.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Dedicated vs. general-purpose representations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CEP framework thus differs from the standard Bayesian framework for vision in three key respects: (1) it separates the objective world W from the interpretation space X (used in the Bayesian inference from Y to X); (2) it introduces perceptual channels P X and P Y from W to the spaces X and Y, respectively; and (3) it introduces a fitness function on W (Fig. 4b).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Computational Evolutionary Perception
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strategy tuned to truths would see squares having between 0 and 5 cans as, say, red and squares having between 6 and 10 cans as green, so that the perceived color would be as informative as possible about the true number of cans.But such a realist strategy would provide no information about payoffs (since red squares would have the same expected payoff as green squares) and would thus fail to”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recall that a specific fitness function f o,s,a presupposes not only a particular organism o, but also a particular state s, and particular action class a.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Dedicated vs. general-purpose representations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The space-time and physical objects of our perceptions are a species-specific adaptation, shaped by natural selection, which allow H. sapiens to survive long enough to reproduce.They are not an insight into the nature of objective reality.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But in a slightly more complex case, say where there are 30 genes and 10 possible colors, then the search space has 10 30 possible perceptual strategies, and it's likely that a realist strategy, with no selection pressures in its favor, would never appear in any generation, because it could only appear by chance.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reproductive success and veridicality are entirely distinct concepts.Whenever they diverge, reproductive success trumps veridicality.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Interface theory of perception
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we cannot expect, in general, that natural selection has tuned our perceptions to truth, i.e., we cannot expect our perceptions to be veridical.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, it's possible, but unlikely.Monte Carlo simulations indicate that greater complexity does not, in general, favor realist strategies.Instead the mistuning of realists exacts a greater toll as the complexity of the situation increases.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Evolutionary games
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So,Gneed not be a symmetry group of the world: the world need not have the structure the observer sees.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface theory still says that hallucinations differ from illusions in Fig. 7 Necker cube that an illusion is seen by most normal people if placed in the right context, but a hallucination is an idiosyncratic perception seen by just one, or perhaps a few, individuals, and need not depend on the context.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a given organism can have many PDA loops, and its PDA loops can be nested and networked in an endless variety of ways.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if the interface theory of perception is correct, and natural selection has shaped H. sapiens to share a nonveridical interface, then that is precisely why we agree.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Discrepancies between perception and the measured world may provide a distinct way of defining illusions (cf.Gregory, 1997).We consider this a weaker form of Billusion^; it is more a lack of consistency between the results of two different measurement procedures.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gregory, 1997 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, Gibson denied that perception involves information processing.The interface theory does not.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Conclusion: objections and replies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That this is mediatedin the world does not imply that the world shares the symmetry: that the world has this symmetry could be merely a conceit of the observer”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This claim is stronger than that of the interface theory and is in fact false.It gets evolution wrong.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface theory explains that stereovision invites behaviors at odds with those appropriate for a cube.This mismatch in behavioral advice, and our confidence in, e.g., the advice of stereovision, keeps us from being fooled.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, we have three Markovian kernels-for perception, decision, and action respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop · plain
“These three kernels therefore form a loop that we call the PDA loop.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
- Also stated in: § Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop · plain
In the paper
“First, Gibson got evolution wrong: He claimed that evolution shapes veridical perceptions of those aspects of the world that have adaptive significance for us.Thus Gibson proposed naïve realism, not the interface theory.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Conclusion: objections and replies
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koenderink 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“according to the interface theory, illusory perception cannot be defined in terms of nonveridicality: indeed all perceptions are fundamentally non-veridical, but only some of them are illusory.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“leading Koenderink (2014) to conclude BThe very notion of veridicality itself, so often invoked in vision studies, is void^and BIt is a major obstacle on the road to the understanding of perception.^”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koenderink 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it replaces the claim that hallucinations are nonveridical perceptions with the claim that hallucinations are perceptions that do not guide adaptive behavior.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our claim is rather that, over the course of evolution, perceptual-motor interactions have played an important role in shaping perceptual mechanisms.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both arguments fail.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even though the observer cannot know kernels P and A individually, it can know the composition kernel AP from actions in G to perceptual representations in X.”
- Also stated in: § Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop · plain
“Similarly, it can know the composition kernel DAP from perceptual representations X back to X.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
- Also stated in: § Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we concede that there is a vital divide between perceptions deemed normal and illusory (which, e.g., Rogers 2014 does not), then we must find new grounds for that divide and construct a new theory of illusions.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no object has any causal powers”
- Also stated in: § Objection 6 · plain
“The interface theory indeed makes both predictions.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
- Also stated in: § Objection 6 · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one good reason would be a fitness function on W that happened to be constant, or roughly constant, within each subset S x but differed between subsets.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence for information processing is now overwhelming.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Conclusion: objections and replies
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the claim of Interface Theory is that perceptual properties of space-time and objects simply reflect characteristics of our perceptual interface; they do not correspond to objective truth.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there is ample evidence that we have systematic weaknesses and rely on fallible heuristics and biases (Kahneman 2011).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kahneman 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this claim is correct, then we can discard a particularly simple theory of perception.But that is not to discard the methodology of science.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we see the world as Euclidean not because this perception is veridical, but because it suitably represents what matters in evolution: fitness.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“just as the observer does not know the true source of its perceptions in the objective world, similarly it does not know the true effects that its actions are having in the objective world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the PDA formalism just described applies not just to humans, but also to all organisms.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no object has a position, or any other physical property, when it is not perceived”
- Also stated in: § Objection 6 · plain
“The interface theory indeed makes both predictions.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
- Also stated in: § Objection 6 · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can continue in the normal fashion to propose scientific theories and make falsifiable predictions about what we will observe.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The measured worlds that result share the same predicates of space and time as our perceptions but don't suffer the same myopia: the Euclidean extension, for instance, easily handles the huge difference in distance between the moon and the stars.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the action ofGon the world need not be a group action: the coordinatesin the fiber could go to any s′ at all in S g.x .Also, there is no requirement on the nature of the different S x : they could be anything at all.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
In the paper
“This forces the interface theory of illusions to identify illusions as perceptions that fail to guide adaptive behavior (Hoffman 2011).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hoffman 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our perception of space might simply be a representation of the fitness costs that we would incur for locomoting and similar actions.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Measured world
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference is that the textbook theory, but not the interface theory, claims that perceptions guide adaptive behaviors because, and only if, they are veridical.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Illusion and hallucination
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This does not entail that all cognitive faculties are not reliable.Each faculty must be examined on its own to determine how it might be shaped by natural selection.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The utilitarian theory of perception claims that evolution has shaped perception to employ a set of heuristics or Bbag of tricks^, rather than sophisticated general principles.It claims that these tricks are employed to recover useful information about an objective physical world (a claim which the interface theory explicitly denies).Accordingly, when these tricks are sufficiently successful (whic”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braunstein 1983 source
- Not matchedcites Ramachandran 1985;1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, both predictions of the interface theory are compatible with current physical theory and experimental data.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The world is much richer than the agent, so it is clear that no A can be onto the world.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a mind-independent world, but it almost surely does not consist of physical objects in space-time that are the targets of intentional content proposed by Coates.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this framework, the interpretation space X in probabilistic inference is not assumed to be identical to the objective world W.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface theory is metaphysically neutral, in that it does not posit anything about the world W other than measurability (in the probability-theory sense, rather than the scientific measurement sense).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, there is a fitness function f on W.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not imply, of course, that there is single, linear evolutionary sequence of perceptual representations.Such sequences can branch out, with possibly multiple representations evolving more or less in parallel while emphasizing different aspects of the original representation (e.g., color, motion, and shape in the context of vision).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But there is no public Porsche.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We both interact with the same objective reality, and we both represent our interaction with a species-specific set of experiences that we refer to as a car.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The shapes, lightness, colors, and textures of sense data were claimed to be seen directly and without intervening inferences.It is now clear that these visual properties are the end products of computations of such sophistication that they are still not fully understood (Frisby and Stone 2010;Knill and Richards 1996;Marr 1982;Palmer 1999;Pizlo et al. 2014).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Frisby and Stone 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Knill and Richards 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Marr 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One can show that if one's degrees of belief don't satisfy the axioms of probability and Bayes rule, then one can be the victim of a Dutch book (e.g.,Jeffrey 2004).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jeffrey 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface theory does not entail that perception is an act whose objects are sense data or that sense data are an incorrigible foundation for an edifice of verified knowledge.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can nevertheless meaningfully consider ascending sequences within this larger lattice of evolving representations.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this proviso, we interpret X as the possible phenomenal states of the observer, and we interpret a specific x∈X not in terms of an act-object relation as proposed by the sensedatum theory, but as a specific phenomenal aspect or constituent of the observer's mind; ours is a one-place account rather than the two-place account of the sense datum theory.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In this regard, our interpretation is much like the critical realist interpretation of Coates (2007).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Coates (2007) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Belief in Bobject permanence,^the belief, e.g., that a doll still exists and has a position even when it's hidden behind a pillow, begins as early as 3 months postpartum and is wellensconced by age 18 months (Bower 1974;Baillargeon and DeVos 1991;Piaget 1954).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No, the interface theory is not a sense-datum theory and does not entail the existence of the sense data, or sensibilia, posited by such theories.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The perceptual channels from W to the perceptual representational spaces X and Y are Btuned^to increase expected-fitness payout to the organism”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interface theory is a general, but mathematically precise, theory of perception and action.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the objective reality is not a car and doesn't remotely resemble a car; moreover, the car of your experience is distinct from the car of my experience.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Rich causal interpretations of physical objects are evident in children by age 6 months (Carey 2009;Keil 2011).”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 6
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here the assumption that neurons are public physical objects that exist unperceived and have causal powers is the starting point for almost all theories, and is, we propose, the reason for the (widely acknowledged) failure of all such theories to solve the mind-body problem.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this proviso, we interpret X as the possible phenomenal states of the observer, and we interpret a specific x∈X not in terms of an act-object relation as proposed by the sensedatum theory, but as a specific phenomenal aspect or constituent of the observer's mind; ours is a one-place account rather than the two-place account of the sense datum theory.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Objection 7
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, what counts as a satisficing solution, or Bsufficient^increase in expected-fitness payout, depends on a number of factors, including the characteristics of the ecological niche of the organism, and of its competitors.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If I do steal it, I've changed objective reality in a way that injures you and rightly puts the law on your side, but the reality that I've changed doesn't resemble a car.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When I see your car, I interact with an objective reality, but my experience of that reality as a car is not an insight into that reality, but is merely a species-specific description shaped by natural selection to guide adaptive behaviors.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The simplified evolutionary games and genetic algorithms discussed in the paper adequately model the evolution of human perceptual strategies.
“Studies of perceptual evolution using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms render a clear verdict: Natural selection discards veridical perceptions and promotes interface strategies tuned to fitness.This motivates the interface theory of perception, which we now discuss”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The objective world W has a probability structure: a space of events and a probability measure on that space.
“Specifically, we assume there is a space of events W on W, and a probability measure μ on this space.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Natural selection generally produces satisficing rather than optimizing solutions.
“We term such an observer ideal, because natural selection does not, in general, produce perceptual channels that maximize expected-fitness payout.It produces satisficing solutions, rather than optimizing solutions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
What matters in evolution is fitness, not objective truth.
“Clearly, what matters in evolution is fitness, not objective truth”
The paper relies on this without support.
Human evolution was governed by the same laws as the evolution of other species.
“After all, the evolution of Homo sapiens was governed by the same laws that govern the evolution of other species.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an objective world W with states that exists independently of observers.
“we have representational spaces (X, Y) and perceptual channels (P X , P Y ) from the world W to these representational spaces.”
“the previous state w of the world is moved to a new state w′ denoted g.w.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Different observers' experiences of a shared object are similar enough to permit communication about that object.
“we both assume that the experience of the other, although numerically distinct from our own experience, is nevertheless similar enough to permit communication.”
“I assume that the Porsche on my screen is similar to the Porsche on yours, so that we can discuss genuinely and compete for the Porsche.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The headaches of other people are similar enough to one's own headaches to make communication possible.
“we assume that the headaches of others are similar enough to our own to make communication possible.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
“What must be learned phylogenetically (i.e., over many generations of the genetic algorithm) is a foraging strategy that specifies which of the seven actions in G to take for each possible perception of the roughly 240 in X that Robby can have.”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
“Surrounding the grid is a wall, which we can model as a perimeter of squares.Thus the world, call it W, that Robby inhabits can be represented as a 12 × 12 grid of squares.We denote the state of square (i, j) by W (i, j) and stipulate that its value is 0 if the square has no cans, 1 if it has one can, and 2 if it is a wall.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
“A strategy tuned to truths would see squares having between 0 and 5 cans as, say, red and squares having between 6 and 10 cans as green, so that the perceived color would be as informative as possible about the true number of cans.But such a realist strategy would provide no information about payoffs (since red squares would have the same expected payoff as green squares)”
§ The Interface Theory of Perception > Genetic algorithms
“He allows each square to have up to 10 cans, and stipulates the following payoff function: (0,1,3,6,9,10,9,6,3,1,0).”
Citations
Cites
Elements of Information Theory
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2001) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471200611 · Cited by 37,139
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Bornstein, M. H., & Gibson, J. J. (1980) · The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism · doi:10.2307/429816 · Cited by 22,935
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
Elements of Information Theory
Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2005) · doi:10.1002/047174882x · Cited by 13,791
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1982) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203981139 · Cited by 11,945
An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms
Mitchell, M. (1996) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001 · Cited by 11,340
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics
Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173179 · Cited by 5,502
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Bower, T. G. R. (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman Press.
- Fields, C. (2014). This boundary-less world. In D. Chopra (Ed.), Brain, mind, cosmos. La Costa, CA: Chopra. Chapter 13.
- Mark, J.T. (2013). Evolutionary pressures on perception: when does natural selection favor truth? Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
- Marion, B.B. (2013). The impact of utility on the evolution of perceptions, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
- Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
- Ramachandran, V. S. (1990). In C. Blakemore (Ed.), Interactions between motion, depth, color and form: The utilitarian theory of perception, in Vision: coding and efficiency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Revuz, D. (1984). Markov chains. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
- Trivers, R. L. (2011). The folly of fools. New York: Basic Books.
- von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
- von Uexküll, J. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds, reprinted in Instinctive behavior: Development of a modern concept, C.H. Schiller. New York: Hallmark Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buzsáki, G. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190905385.001.0001 · Cited by 383
Levin, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201 · Cited by 195
“More generally a key future aspect to address is whether these spaces have any objective reality, or whether the spaces that scientists see systems solving, as well as the spaces that the system itself constructs from its experience [150; 151], are equally valid and all virtual.”
Is neuroimaging measuring information in the brain?
de‐Wit, L., Alexander, D. M., Ekroll, V., & Wagemans, J. P. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1002-0 · Cited by 141
“However, Kamitani and Tong (2005) observed that some voxels had a slight bias for one orientation or another.”
BackgroundTheoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review
Sattin, D., Magnani, F. G., Bartesaghi, L., Caputo, M., Fittipaldo, V. A., Cacciatore, M., Picozzi, M., & Leonardi, M. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11050535 · Cited by 155
Perceiving the World Through Group-Colored Glasses: A Perceptual Model of Intergroup Relations
Xiao, Y. J., Coppin, G., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2016.1199221 · Cited by 121
Fields, C., & Levin, M. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24060819 · Cited by 121
Hoffman, D. D., & Prakash, C. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577 · Cited by 103
Self-citationRationality, perception, and the all-seeing eye
Felin, T., Koenderink, J. J., & Krueger, J. I. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1198-z · Cited by 105
Minimal physicalism as a scale-free substrate for cognition and consciousness
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. G. (2021) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niab013 · Cited by 99
Unsupervised learning predicts human perception and misperception of gloss
Storrs, K. R., Anderson, B. L., & Fleming, R. W. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01097-6 · Cited by 98
The simplicity principle in perception and cognition
Feldman, J. (2016) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1406 · Cited by 102
An overview of quantitative approaches in Gestalt perception
Jäkel, F., Singh, M., Wichmann, F. A., & Herzog, M. H. (2016) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2016.06.004 · Cited by 75
Self-citationMind, rationality, and cognition: An interdisciplinary debate
Chater, N., Felin, T., Funder, D. C., Gigerenzer, G., Koenderink, J. J., Krueger, J. I., Noble, D., Nordli, S. A., Oaksford, M., Schwartz, B. N., et al. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1333-5 · Cited by 85
Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception
Prakash, C., Stephens, K. D., Hoffman, D. D., Singh, M., & Fields, C. (2021) · Acta Biotheoretica · doi:10.1007/s10441-020-09400-0 · Cited by 66
Self-citationConscious agent networks: Formal analysis and application to cognition
Fields, C., Hoffman, D. D., Prakash, C., & Singh, M. (2017) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.10.003 · Cited by 67
“3a) into the composition of a mapping P 1 from W to a space Y of ‘‘raw ” perceptual images with a map (labelled B in Hoffman et al., 2015, Fig.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationHow Do Living Systems Create Meaning?
Fields, C., & Levin, M. G. (2020) · Philosophies · doi:10.3390/philosophies5040036 · Cited by 59
Wagemans, J. P. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn218 · Cited by 93
The Computational Origin of Representation
Piantadosi, S. T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09540-9 · Cited by 71
Wahbeh, H., Radin, D. I., Cannard, C., & Arnaud Delorme, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594 · Cited by 76
Human V4 Activity Patterns Predict Behavioral Performance in Imagery of Object Color
Bannert, M. M., & Bartels, A. (2018) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2307-17.2018 · Cited by 55
The Interface Theory of Perception
Hoffman, D. D. (2016) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721416639702 · Cited by 57
Self-citationMotion perception as a model for perceptual aging
Billino, J., & Pilz, K. S. (2019) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/19.4.3 · Cited by 51
Massimi, M., & McCoy, C. D. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315145198 · Cited by 65
Prakash, C., Fields, C., Hoffman, D. D., Prentner, R., & Singh, M. (2020) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e22050514 · Cited by 49
Self-citationKorman, D. Z. (2019) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12638 · Cited by 47
Causal events enter awareness faster than non-causal events
Moors, P., Wagemans, J. P., & de‐Wit, L. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.2932 · Cited by 43
Hyperspectral database of fruits and vegetables
Ennis, R., Schiller, F., Toscani, M., et al. (2018) · Journal of the Optical Society of America A · doi:10.1364/josaa.35.00b256 · Cited by 43
Consciousness and topologically structured phenomenal spaces
Prentner, R. (2019) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2019.02.002 · Cited by 44
Sensory perception relies on fitness-maximizing codes
Schaffner, J., Bao, S. D., Tobler, P. N., Hare, T. A., & Polanía, R. H. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01584-y · Cited by 54
“Additionally, please note that the solutions provided in equations (11) and (12) are derived on the basis of maximizing the accurate choices and reward expectation, respectively, without any assumptions about maximizing information efficiency as a goal in itself.”
BackgroundInformation flow in context-dependent hierarchical Bayesian inference
Fields, C., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2020) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2020.1836034 · Cited by 38
“They arise immediately, however, when the observer is separated from the world by a Markov Blanket (Clark, 2017; Friston, 2013) or, equivalently, an interface (Hoffman et al., 2015) that renders observations conditionally independent from the world, including the effects of actions.”
BackgroundGolonka, S., & Wilson, A. D. (2019) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1080/10407413.2019.1615224 · Cited by 39
“…but because the mapping is arbitrary there is no guaranteed way for the representation to have any content, let alone the right content (this problem has most recently been laid out in detail in the interface theory of perception; Hoffman, Singh, & Prakash, 2015; see also Wilson, 2018a).”
BackgroundThe Physical Meaning of the Holographic Principle
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Marcianò, A. (2022) · Quanta · doi:10.12743/quanta.v11i1.206 · Cited by 37
Visual adaptation and the purpose of perception
Phillips, I. B., & Firestone, C. (2023) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/anac060 · Cited by 28
How the conception of control influences our understanding of actions
Floegel, M., Kasper, J., Perrier, P., & Kell, C. A. (2023) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-023-00691-z · Cited by 36
Naturalizing Phenomenology: A Must Have?
Albertazzi, L. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01933 · Cited by 31
Mental distress through the prism of predictive processing theory
Van de Cruys, S., & Van Dessel, P. (2021) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.006 · Cited by 28
Modeling autopoiesis and cognition with reaction networks
Heylighen, F., & Busseniers, E. (2023) · Biosystems · doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104937 · Cited by 27
“According to his interface theory of perception (Hoffman, 2019; Hoffman et al., 2015), an apparently perceived object, such as a tomato or a stone, is rather like an icon on a computer desktop.”
BackgroundA Generative View of Rationality and Growing Awareness†
Felin, T., & Koenderink, J. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.807261 · Cited by 24
The free energy principle induces neuromorphic development
Fields, C., Friston, K. J., Glazebrook, J. F., Levin, M. G., & Marcianò, A. (2022) · Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering · doi:10.1088/2634-4386/aca7de · Cited by 29
“In the language of perceptual psychology, the MB functions as an “interface” [61] that encodes perceptions and actions.”
Hoffman, D. D., Prakash, C., & Prentner, R. (2023) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e25010129 · Cited by 34
Self-citationFields, C., & Levin, M. G. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/87nzu · Cited by 22
A mosaic of Chu spaces and Channel Theory I: Category-theoretic concepts and tools
Fields, C., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2018) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2018.1544282 · Cited by 24
Modelling serendipity in a computational contextPreprint
Corneli, J., Jordanous, A., Guckelsberger, C., Pease, A., & Colton, S. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.0440 · Cited by 31
Mortal Computation: A Foundation for Biomimetic IntelligencePreprint
Ororbia, A. G., & Friston, K. J. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/epqkg · Cited by 52
Debunking Arguments in Metaethics and Metaphysics
Korman, D. (2019) · Metaphysics and Cognitive Science · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190639679.003.0014 · Cited by 19
Williams, P., Alessa, L., Abatzoglou, J. T., et al. (2017) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1220-7 · Cited by 23
Artificial Motivation for Cognitive Software Agents
McCall, R. J., Franklin, S., Faghihi, U., Snaider, J., & Kugele, S. (2020) · Journal of Artificial General Intelligence · doi:10.2478/jagi-2020-0002 · Cited by 23
“Sophisticated agents, such as humans, process (make sense of) the input from such sampling in order to facilitate their action selection (Hoffman, Singh, & Prakash, 2015).”
BackgroundThe Interface Theory of Perception
Hoffman, D. D. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn216 · Cited by 23
Self-citationRationality, preferences, and emotions with biological constraints: it all starts from our senses
Polanía, R., Burdakov, D., & Hare, T. A. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.003 · Cited by 24
Pezzulo, G., D’Amato, L., Mannella, F., Priorelli, M., de Maele, T. V., Stoianov, I. P., & Friston, K. J. (2024) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15118 · Cited by 25
McLaughlin, B. P. (2016) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics201644224 · Cited by 22
Never Repeat the Same Trick Twice—Unless it is Cognitively Impenetrable
Ekroll, V., Bruyckere, E. D., Vanwezemael, L., et al. (2018) · i-Perception · doi:10.1177/2041669518816711 · Cited by 21
Barfuß, W., & Mann, R. P. (2022) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.105.034409 · Cited by 23
The Adaptive Markets Hypothesis
Lo, A. W., & Zhang, R. (2024) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199681143.001.0001 · Cited by 23
Edwards, D. J. (2024) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2024.1395901 · Cited by 24
“…form of conscious agents (CAs) that project into the universe as a perceptual interface as internal states C intO that satisfy the definition of conditional independence (Hoffman and Prakash, 2014; Hoffman et al., 2015; Fields et al., 2018; Prakash, 2020; Prakash et al., 2020, 2021; Edwards, 2023).”
BackgroundResultPrincipled Limitations on Self-Representation for Generic Physical Systems
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Levin, M. G. (2024) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e26030194 · Cited by 22
“This can be expected to have consequences for recent models including the “inner screen” [107], “interface” [129], and “beast machine” [93] approaches, among others.”
BackgroundNature, Mind, and Medicine: A Model for Mind–Body Healing
Kaufman, J. A. (2018) · EXPLORE · doi:10.1016/j.explore.2018.01.001 · Cited by 19
Hong, X., Ji, X., & Wu, Z. (2021) · Color Research & Application · doi:10.1002/col.22736 · Cited by 18
Is Consciousness First in Virtual Reality?
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.787523 · Cited by 20
“We next discuss the Interface Theory of Perception (Hoffman et al., 2015), and how it can be useful to explain how perception in VR works, and discuss some predictions of this theory that can be tested within VR.”
BackgroundInfluentialGeert, E. V., & Wagemans, J. P. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02344-9 · Cited by 19
Laflaquière, A., O'Regan, J. K., Gas, B., & Terekhov, A. V. (2018) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018.06.001 · Cited by 19
“This mechanism has to be consistent from the intrinsic perspective of the agent, grounded in its sensorimotor experience, the only source of information it has access to Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (2015) and Hohwy (2016).”
BackgroundFields, C. (2016) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems4040032 · Cited by 19
Fields, C., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2018) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/0952813x.2018.1544285 · Cited by 15
“See Churchland (2012) for a treatment of these ontological questions along realist lines that assumes object persistence as an ontological fact, and Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (2015) for arguments that such realist assumptions are inconsistent with an evolutionary account of the architecture of…”
BackgroundThe influence of perceptual–motor variability on the perception of action boundaries for reaching.
Lin, L. P. Y., McLatchie, N. M., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000724 · Cited by 17
Unsupervised learning predicts human perception and misperception of glossPreprint
Storrs, K. R., Anderson, B. L., & Fleming, R. W. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.04.07.026120 · Cited by 15
Preferences need inferences: Learning, valuation, and curiosity in aesthetic experiencePreprint
de Cruys, S. V., Bervoets, J., & Moors, A. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/zh6nt · Cited by 19
Shwedeh, F., Yas, N., Abdijabar, Z. G., et al. (2024) · Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i8.6303 · Cited by 14
“Certain enterprises or concentrated callings, such banking, protection, exchanging, and medication, are likewise represented by extra guidelines well defined for that industry (Hoffman et al., 2015).”
BackgroundFields, C., Hoffman, D. D., Prakash, C., & Prentner, R. (2017) · Constructivist Foundations · Cited by 10
Self-citationExogenous attention intensifies perceived emotion expressions
Mishra, M., & Srinivasan, N. (2017) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/nix022 · Cited by 13
Virtual Reality for Vision Science
Hibbard, P. B. (2023) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2023_416 · Cited by 13
Mausfeld, R. J. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0763-6 · Cited by 12
Edwards, D. J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150743 · Cited by 13
“…potentially useful avenue for modeling the observer self, and avoiding self-referential paradoxes is Hoffman and colleagues’ (Hoffman et al., 2015; Hoffman, 2016) interface theory of perception (ITP), whereby perceptual systems provide an organism-specific user interface promoted by evolutionary…”
BackgroundQuantum-like Qualia hypothesis: from quantum cognition to quantum perception
Tsuchiya, N., Bruza, P., Yamada, M., Saigo, H., & Pothos, E. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1406459 · Cited by 23
“Just to name a few, “interface” in interface theory of consciousness (Hoffman et al., 2015, 2023; Prakash et al., 2020; Prentner, 2021), “background conditions” in the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness (Albantakis et al., 2022), “Markov blanket” in the free energy principle (Kirchhoff…”
Lupyan, G. (2017) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics20174515 · Cited by 18
Felin, T., Felin, M., Krueger, J. I., et al. (2019) · Perception · doi:10.1177/0301006618822217 · Cited by 11
Neural codes in early sensory areas maximize fitnessPreprint
Schaffner, J., Tobler, P. N., Hare, T. A., & Polanía, R. H. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.05.10.443388 · Cited by 11
“The corroborating evidence presented in our work grounded on the principles of neural coding and decision behaviour should help to advance the development and refinement of these theories within economics and related disciplines of evolutionary biology and social sciences (36–38).”
BackgroundEdwards, D. J. (2025) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2025.1551960 · Cited by 10
Distorted distance perception to reachable points in people with chronic shoulder pain
Alaiti, R. K., Harvie, D. S., Gasparin, J. T., de Sousa, M. F., Pompeu, J. E., Madden, V. J., Hunziker, M. H. L., & Costa, M. F. (2019) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2019.04.015 · Cited by 10
Kordeš, U., & Demšar, E. (2019) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-019-09638-z · Cited by 9
Qu, Z., Lu, Y., Jiang, Z., Bassett, E. M., & Tan, T. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10093056 · Cited by 10
On Invention of Structure in the World: Interfaces and Conscious Agents
Prakash, C. (2019) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-019-09579-7 · Cited by 10
“This result motivates a discussion of the interface theory of perception (Hoffman 2009; Hoffman et al. 2015), which recognises that perceptions do not necessarily represent an objective reality but have evolved to lie in an interface with reality; one that may bear little or no resemblance to that…”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationUn-debunking Ordinary Objects with the Help of Predictive Processing
Gładziejewski, P. (2021) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/715105 · Cited by 9
The Search Function and Evolutionary Novelty
Felin, T., & Kauffman, S. A. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198837091.003.0007 · Cited by 10
Aguboshim, F. C., Ezeasomba, I. N., & Ezeife, J. E. (2019) · Journal of information engineering and applications · doi:10.7176/jiea/9-5-02 · Cited by 9
Berke, M., Walter‐Terrill, R., Jara‐Ettinger, J., & Scholl, B. J. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13195 · Cited by 9
The Perception of Operational Sex Ratios by Voice
Neuhoff, J. G. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18182-4 · Cited by 10
Naïve Realism, the Slightest Philosophy, and the Slightest Science
French, C., & Phillips, I. B. (2023) · doi:10.1002/9781394259847.ch21 · Cited by 9
Hierarchical consciousness: the Nested Observer Windows model
Riddle, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2024) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niae010 · Cited by 8
“This framing is similar to Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception, in which subjective experience is akin to a user interface (D. D. Hoffman et al. 2015), but in the NOW Model this interface is abstracted through the nested hierarchy.”
MethodFields, C. (2018) · Philosophies · doi:10.3390/philosophies3040029 · Cited by 12
Usefulness Drives Representations to Truth
Martínez, M. (2019) · Grazer Philosophische Studien · doi:10.1163/18756735-09603004 · Cited by 8
On Bayesian Simplicity in Human Visual Perceptual Organization
van der Helm, P. A. (2017) · Perception · doi:10.1177/0301006617719604 · Cited by 7
The structural basis of age-related decline in global motion perception at fast and slow speeds
Yan, S., Chen, J., Yin, X., Zhu, Z., Liang, Z., Jin, H., Li, H., Yin, J., Jiang, Y., & Xia, Y. (2023) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108507 · Cited by 7
The myth of optimality in human movement science
Mangalam, M. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106352 · Cited by 10
Bayesian inference and “truth”: a comment on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash
Feldman, J. (2015) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0795-y · Cited by 7
Task Construal Influences Estimations of the Environment
Keric, V., & Sebanz, N. (2021) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.625193 · Cited by 7
Life, Death, and Other Inconvenient Truths
Edelman, S. (2020) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/12282.001.0001 · Cited by 7
Greenery as an Element of Imageability in Window Views
Fikfak, A., Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M., & Drobne, S. (2022) · Land · doi:10.3390/land11122157 · Cited by 8
What Are the "True" Statistics of the Environment?
Feldman, J. (2017) · Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1111/cogs.12444 · Cited by 8
Koenderink, J. J., van Doorn, A. J., & Wagemans, J. P. (2018) · Annual Review of Vision Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-vision-091517-034250 · Cited by 7
Chemistry, context and the objects of thought
Prentner, R. (2017) · Foundations of Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s10698-017-9273-8 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffman, D. D., Singh, M., & Prakash, C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- California State University, San Bernardino (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hoffman, Donald D.
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2015-09-18
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1480-1506
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W1766695457
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 181
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 11.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- interface theory of perception, evolution of perception, perceptual strategies, veridical perception, evolutionary game theory, genetic algorithm, fitness function, natural selection, perception of space and time, object perception
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Biological Evolution, Humans, Learning, Perception, Psychological Theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
