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
An Essay concerning Human Understanding
Locke, J. (1690) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00018020 · Cited by 5,214
The Construction Of Reality In The Child
Piaget, J. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315009650 · Cited by 4,608
Probability theory the logic of science
Jaynes, E. T., & Bretthorst, G. L. (2003) · Cited by 4,600
The construction of reality in the child.
Piaget, J. (1954) · doi:10.1037/11168-000 · Cited by 4,558
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science
Jaynes, E. T. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790423 · Cited by 4,045
PINKER, S. (1999) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x · Cited by 3,738
Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics
Taylor, P., & Jonker, L. (1978) · Mathematical Biosciences · doi:10.1016/0025-5564(78)90077-9 · Cited by 3,432
Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism
Quine, W. V. O. (1951) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2181906 · Cited by 3,042
Empiricism and the philosophy of mind
Sellars, W. (1997) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) · Cited by 2,727
Quine, W. V. O. (1976) · Sententiae · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_2 · Cited by 2,709
The Ecological Approach To Visual Perception
Gibson, J. J. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203767764 · Cited by 2,622
Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life
NOWAK, M. A. (2006) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjghw98 · Cited by 2,438
Carey, S. E. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/e513702014-002 · Cited by 2,324
Carey, S. (2009) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001 · Cited by 2,322
(1999) · Cited by 2,243
Radical Embodied Cognitive Science
Chemero, A. P. (2009) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/8367.001.0001 · Cited by 1,899
Noë, A. (2005) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,876
Hanson, N. R., & Schmidt, P. F. (1959) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1934835 · Cited by 1,843
McDowell, J. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,824
A Field Guide to Genetic Programming
Poli, R., Langdon, W. B., & McPhee, N. F. (2008) · Cited by 1,705
Russell, B. (1999) · Philosophy East and West · doi:10.2307/1400126 · Cited by 1,614
Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4439 · Cited by 1,535
Perception as Bayesian Inference
(1996) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511984037 · Cited by 1,425
Population Games and Evolutionary DynamicsPreprint
Sandholm, W. H. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1,369
Evolutionary dynamics on graphs
Aiden, E. L., Hauert, C., & Nowak, M. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03204 · Cited by 1,336
Elements of psychophysics, 1860.
Fechner, G. T. (1948) · Readings in the history of psychology. · doi:10.1037/11304-026 · Cited by 1,307
Object perception as Bayesian inference
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142005 · Cited by 1,269
Radical embodied cognitive science
Chemero, A. P. (2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-3480 · Cited by 1,144
Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology
Lindsey, D. (2000) · Optometry and Vision Science · doi:10.1097/00006324-200005000-00008 · Cited by 865
McDowell, J. (1996) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674417892 · Cited by 854
How direct is visual perception?: Some reflections on Gibson's “ecological approach”
Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90009-3 · Cited by 851
A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge, 1734
Berkeley, G. (1971) · Cited by 841
Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection
Mezzetti, C., & Samuelson, L. (1998) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1061220 · Cited by 825
Producers and scroungers: A general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows
Barnard, C. J., & Sibly, R. M. (1981) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(81)80117-0 · Cited by 766
Land, M. F., & Nilsson, D.-E. (2012) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581139.001.0001 · Cited by 739
McDowell, J. (1996) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjghtzj · Cited by 736
Visual Perception and the Statistical Properties of Natural Scenes
Geisler, W. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085632 · Cited by 732
The Philosophy of Logical Atomism
(2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94364-0 · Cited by 730
Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere
von Uexküll, J. (1921) · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-24819-5 · Cited by 704
Brewer, B. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260256.001.0001 · Cited by 606
Cornwell, J. F. (1984) · Cited by 555
Introduction to genetic algorithms
Goodman, E. D. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1570256.1570402 · Cited by 553
Brainard, D. H., & Freeman, W. T. (1997) · Journal of the Optical Society of America A · doi:10.1364/josaa.14.001393 · Cited by 525
Color realism and color science
Byrne, A., & Hilbert, D. R. (2003) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x03000013 · Cited by 518
Moore, G. E. (1903) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/xii.4.433 · Cited by 512
Object Permanence in Young Infants: Further Evidence
Baillargeon, R., & DeVos, J. (1991) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130803 · Cited by 501
The Algebra of Probable Inference
Barnard, G. A., & Cox, R. T. (1962) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1909904 · Cited by 500
Knowledge in perception and illusion
Gregory, R. L. (1997) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1997.0095 · Cited by 498
Visual intelligence: how we create what we see
(1999) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-6574 · Cited by 495
Brewer, B. (2011) · doi:10.1007/s11098-006-9051-2 · Cited by 482
Cox, R. (2001) · doi:10.56021/9780801869822 · Cited by 462
Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion
Fish, W. (2009) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381344.001.0001 · Cited by 451
(1983) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10347-9 · Cited by 393
Putnam, H., & McDowell, J. (1997) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2998359 · Cited by 370
Noë, A. (2012) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674063013 · Cited by 366
The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis.
Mace, C. A., Feigl, H., & Scriven, M. (1958) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2182400 · Cited by 343
On the perception of shape from shading
Kleffner, D. A., & Ramachandran, V. S. (1992) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03206757 · Cited by 335
Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world
Shepard, R. N. (1994) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03200759 · Cited by 309
QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism
Fuchs, C. A. (2010) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1003.5209 · Cited by 295
Probability matching as a computational strategy used in perception
Wozny, D. R., Beierholm, U. R., & Shams, L. (2010) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000871 · Cited by 265
Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere.
(1910) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1910.02550370075031 · Cited by 265
Subjective Probability: The Real Thing
Jeffrey, R. C. (2004) · Cited by 259
Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics
Yuille, A. L., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1996) · Perception as Bayesian Inference · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511984037.006 · Cited by 250 · cited 1×
“Yuille and Bülthoff (1996) for instance: BWe define vision as perceptual inference, the estimation of scene properties from an image or sequence of images…there is insufficient information in the image to determine uniquely the scene.”
BackgroundThe Algebra of Probable Inference
Cox, R. T., & Jaynes, E. T. (1963) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1969248 · Cited by 234
three dialogues between hylas and philonous
Atherton, M. (2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119537403.ch10 · Cited by 231
Lotka-Volterra equation and replicator dynamics: A two-dimensional classification
Bomze, I. M. (1983) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/bf00318088 · Cited by 221
Strawson, P. F. (2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7111.003.0008 · Cited by 219
Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world
Shepard, R. N. (2001) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x01000012 · Cited by 217
Bayesian Modelling of Visual Perception
Mamassian, P., Landy, M., & Maloney, L. T. (2002) · Probabilistic Models of the Brain · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5583.003.0005 · Cited by 210
Perception viewed as an inverse problem
Pizlo, Z. (2001) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00173-0 · Cited by 204
The perception of shading and reflectance
Adelson, E. H., & Pentland, A. (1996) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511984037.014 · Cited by 203
Moore, G. E. (2013) · Cited by 200
Fish, W. (2010) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203880586 · Cited by 172
Searle, J. R. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199385157.001.0001 · Cited by 170
Subjective Probability: The Real Thing
Jeffrey, R. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816161 · Cited by 167
Barnes, W. H. F. (1945) · Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) · doi:10.1093/aristotelian/45.1.89 · Cited by 133
Harper, G. R., & Pfennig, D. W. (2007) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0558 · Cited by 128
A Bayesian approach to the evolution of perceptual and cognitive systems
Geisler, W. S., & Diehl, R. L. (2003) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00009-0 · Cited by 125
The Neurobiology of Perception
Ramachandran, V. S. (1985) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p140097 · Cited by 121
The Interface Theory of Perception: Natural Selection Drives True Perception to Swift Extinction
Hoffman, D. D. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511635465.009 · Cited by 120
Self-citation3D shape: its unique place in visual perception
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0587 · Cited by 118
Campbell, J., & Cassam, Q. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716259.001.0001 · Cited by 113
BEETLES ON THE BOTTLE: MALE BUPRESTIDS MISTAKE STUBBIES FOR FEMALES (COLEOPTERA)
Gwynne, D. T., & Rentz, D. C. F. (1983) · Australian Journal of Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.1983.tb01846.x · Cited by 112
Object Categorization: Computer and Human Vision Perspectives
(2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511635465 · Cited by 110
Colour PerceptionMind and the physical world
Mausfeld, R. J., & Heyer, D. (2003) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198505006.001.0001 · Cited by 109
Large Systematic Deviations in the Haptic Perception of Parallelity
Kappers, A. M. L. (1999) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p281001 · Cited by 107
Berkeley's puzzle: what does experience teach us?
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.190528 · Cited by 103
Hoffman, D. D., & Prakash, C. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577 · Cited by 103
Self-citationEvolutionary Games and Equilibrium SelectionPreprint
Samuelson, L. (1998) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 102
Bayesian natural selection and the evolution of perceptual systems
Geisler, W. S., & Diehl, R. L. (2002) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.1055 · Cited by 101
Making a Machine That Sees Like Us
Pizlo, Z., Li, Y., Sawada, T., et al. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922543.001.0001 · Cited by 100
Seeing things as they are: a theory of perception
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.191474 · Cited by 100
Seeing: the computational approach to biological vision
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-3852 · Cited by 98
Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere [microform] / von J. von Uexküll.
von Uexküll, J. (1909) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.1150 · Cited by 98
Faurie, C., & Raymond, A. (1984) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1984.tb00130a.x · Cited by 97
Natural selection and veridical perceptions
Mark, J. T., Marion, B. B., & Hoffman, D. D. (2010) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.07.020 · Cited by 97
Self-citationA Bayesian approach to the evolution of perceptual and cognitive systems
Geisler, W. S., & Diehl, R. L. (2003) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2703_3 · Cited by 89
Philosophy of Perception: A Contemporary Introduction
Fish, W. (2010) · Cited by 87
Journal of the Australian Entomological Society
(1967) · Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America · doi:10.1093/besa/13.1.2a · Cited by 86
Horváth, G., Bernáth, B., & Molnár, G. (1998) · Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/s001140050503 · Cited by 84
Horváth, G., Malik, P., Kriska, G., & Wildermuth, H. (2007) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01798.x · Cited by 84
Human sweet taste receptor mediates acid-induced sweetness of miraculin
Koizumi, A., Tsuchiya, A., Nakajima, K.-I., Ito, K., Terada, T., Shimizu-Ibuka, A., Briand, L., Asakura, T., Misaka, T., & Abe, K. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1016644108 · Cited by 77
Tuning Your Priors to the World
Feldman, J. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12003 · Cited by 73
Koenderink, J. (2014) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p4301ed · Cited by 70
The metrics of visual and haptic space based on parallelity judgements
Cuijpers, R. H., Kappers, A. M. L., & Koenderink, J. J. (2003) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2496(03)00004-x · Cited by 70
Perception: Essays After Frege
Travis, C. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199676545.001.0001 · Cited by 61
(2008) · Cited by 61
Self-citationComputational Evolutionary Perception
Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (2012) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p7275 · Cited by 61 · cited 9×
“One implication of this is that the prior probability distribution on X, used in making Bayesian inferences from Y to X, is not the Bworld prior^ in our framework, but rather its pushdown probability measure—via the perceptual channel PX—onto the representational space X. Fitness of course plays a fundamental role in…”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationThe Metaphysics of Perception: Wilfrid Sellars, Perceptual Consciousness and Critical Realism
Coates, P. (2007) · doi:10.4324/9780203503829 · Cited by 58
Koenderink, J. J. (2010) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 57
This Will Make You Smarter: New Scientific Concepts to Improve Your Thinking
Brockman, J. R., & Brooks, D. (2012) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 50
II.—SENSE-DATA AND THE PERCEPT THEORY
Firth, R. (1949) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lviii.232.434 · Cited by 50
Bayesian modeling of visual perception
Mamassian, P., Landy, M. S., & Maloney, L. T. (2002) · Cited by 49
Space as an Invention of Active Agents
Terekhov, A. V., & O'Regan, J. K. (2016) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00004 · Cited by 43
Laidre, M. E., & Epstein, K. A. (2014) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-014-9201-8 · Cited by 42
III.—SENSE-DATA AND THE PERCEPT THEORY
Firth, R. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.233.35 · Cited by 42
Koenderink, J. J. (2011) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.881671 · Cited by 39
Keil, F. C. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1195221 · Cited by 39
The Construction of Visual Reality
Hoffman, D. D. (2012) · Hallucinations · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0959-5_2 · Cited by 37
Self-citationFrequency dependent selection: homage to E. B. Poulton
ALLEN, J. A., & CLARKE, B. C. (1984) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1984.tb00802.x · Cited by 37
The Physicalistic Trap in Perception Theory
Mausfeld, R. J. (2002) · doi:10.1002/0470013427.ch4 · Cited by 33
Color Qualities and the Physical World
Hardin, C. L. (2008) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262232661.003.0008 · Cited by 33
Stern, B. J. (1927) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/5.4.661 · Cited by 32
Koenderink, J., van Doorn, A., de Ridder, H., & Oomes, S. (2010) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6530 · Cited by 31
3D Shape: Its Unique Place in Visual Perception
Connolly, D. C. (2009) · Sensor Review · doi:10.1108/sr.2009.08729bae.001 · Cited by 31
Rogers, B. (2014) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p7731 · Cited by 26
Natural Selection and Shape Perception
Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D. (2013) · Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5195-1_12 · Cited by 23
Self-citationGeometrical Optical Illusionists
Wade, N. J. (2014) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p7695 · Cited by 18
de Ridder, H., Nefs, H. T., Pas, S. F. T., Pont, S. C., Koenderink, J. J., Wijntjes, M., & van Doorn, A. J. (2012) · Seeing and Perceiving · doi:10.1163/187847611x595891 · Cited by 18
Quantum reality: theory and philosophy
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-3224 · Cited by 17
Campbell, J. (2007) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2007.00119.x · Cited by 15
World, environment, Umwelt, and innerworld: a biological perspective on visual awareness
Koenderink, J. J. (2013) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.2011874 · Cited by 14
Learning an internal representation of the end-effector configuration space
Laflaquière, A., Terekhov, A. V., Gas, B., & O'Regan, J. K. (2013) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2013.6696507 · Cited by 12
Does evolution favor true perceptions?
Hoffman, D. D., Singh, M., & Mark, J. T. (2013) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.2011609 · Cited by 12
Self-citationSpace as an invention of biological organismsPreprint
Terekhov, A. V., & O'Regan, J. K. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.2124 · Cited by 12
Contrasts between Human and Machine Vision: Should Technology Recapitulate Phylogeny?
Braunstein, M. L. (1983) · Human and Machine Vision · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-084320-6.50009-8 · Cited by 10
Kimura, S. (2009) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.1992.tb02497.x · Cited by 10
Allday, J. (2009) · doi:10.1201/9781584887041 · Cited by 10
Public Objects and Private Qualia
Hoffman, D. D. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118329016.ch2 · Cited by 8
Self-citationJohnson, S. R. (1793) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00050635 · Cited by 5
Koenderink, J. (2014) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p4310ed
The Philosophy of Logical Atomism: Lectures 1-2
Russell, B. (1918) · Monist · doi:10.5840/monist19182843
Color Qualities and the Physical World
Hardin, C. L. (2008) · The Case for Qualia · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7564.003.0011
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
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
