Hey guys. I've been lurking for a while but this is my first post . I've been thinking about this for a while now and I'm hoping someone with a background in cognitive science can tell me if there is anything wrong with this idea. Assuming that the brain translates information from the outside world into a working model of reality that we then interact with, it's pretty obvious that this "working model" is a model that's useful for natural selection. After all, we evolved to adapt to the immediate environment, which is why it's so difficult to learn something like quantum mechanics for the first time. Everyone who learns quantum mechanics has to go through a period of re-adjusting their minds in order to understand sub-atomic particles in terms of mathematical objects in a vector space instead of trying to relate them to things we see on a regular basis. But, if conscious life were to exist at a sub-atomic scale, then those organisms living at that scale would perceive reality in a completely different way from macroscopic organisms. They would see that atoms are almost entirely empty space, and the idea of an object being "solid" would be inconceivable to them. Another example would be another planet that allows for life to exist, there could be deadly airborne viruses everywhere with no predators, and due to natural selection, the only macroscopic organisms that would survive are the ones who's visible wavelength of light is short enough to see these viruses. Their perception of reality would be like an intense psychedelic trip for us, and our human perception would be a trip for them. So basically, my high idea is that our perception of reality is shaped by natural selection to be a perception useful for survival, and "reality" would be very different to us if there were different evolutionary pressures.
I feel like I've come across this concept before but you laid it out very well. a similar concept would be how some scientist have a much too specific concept of what alien life could possibly be like. but in regards to your post,I think it's a fundamental problem in perspective to assume our "version" of reality would/should be the standard. you seem to have made a really good point about our perception ultimately being a product of evolution. with that in mind, I'd have to agree with your post.
I don't really think there is much wrong with your basic assertion that our perception is a result of evolution. I just think you chose poor examples with which to demonstrate your idea. I also think what exactly defines a different perceived reality needs a better explanation. I guess I feel like most of this is already well established so I don't really understand your point. For example, there are species of birds which can see into the infrared part of the spectrum which evolved to help them differentiate between sexes.
Might be thinking bout UV light. Most animals don't "see" infrared really, its usually detected with another type of sensory organ. If they do see it, its just their red cones getting activated at the upper end of the spectrum, which only a few animals are known to make use of it that way. A lot of birds and fish have color/semicolor and UV vision all in one, which is useful as you said, for selecting mates. But infrared is crazy to think about. Like pit vipers, they have regular vision and then can sense infrared, but does the infrared overlap the vision inside their mind or does it get processed separately?
Yea that's what I meant my bad, the first two things that crossed my mind were birds and UV and infrared in snakes and I mixed them up. I really want to know the answer to your question too. I would think their infrared sensing capabilities would overlap with their normal vision, which is known to be poor, but I don't think this idea has really tested very much yet. I think their has been some testing that has shown that snakes are still aware of their environment even when their eyes are covered. I really don't know though, it could be process separately from their vision like a sort of "sixth sense". I think someone needs to look this up and make a thread about it.
also, sharks that detect minute temperature changes in the water via electromagnetic sensory organs. btw, that snake info is bad ass. that would explain why they never really seem to freak out when they get tossed in a bag.
Nothing wrong with making a mistake as long as you can recognize it. It's a question that has bugged me ever since I saw some program and it was like "this is what it looks like through the eyes of a snake" and I am like 'uh, and how exactly would you know?' cause if you think about it, it's more heat sensory than anything. And we can feel heat on our skin and process it separately from our other senses, but then combine it all in our mind.. Another interesting thing to think about is I've read that the majority of women have an extra color cone, but can't find where they specify what kind. Is it just another blue, green, or red? Or does it dip down into the UV a lil bit? I don't know, but as stretched as this is, could explain why women tend to appreciate vibrant colors and such more, because they're seeing a lil more than normal. I would love to be able to see the UV spectrum.. It's like evolution made us intelligent, but because of that we didn't get the chance to evolve all the badass natural tools. Yeah man, sharks are beasts. I think the snake bag just calms them down and makes them feel safe, like they're in their burrow or something, only because not all snakes make use of infrared. Some snakes make it easy too and willingly go into the bag thinking they're escaping..
Yeah I'm pretty sure that there's some research done on this already, I'll have to find it. It's a mindfuck to try to imagine reality from the point of view of a bird or something.