The Sensing and Perceiving Mind - Essay Example

? THE SENSING AND PERCEIVING MIND: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Sensing and Perceiving Mind: Answers to Questions What importance did optical illusionhave in the debate about the nature of the mind? Optical illusions or more specifically visual illusions automatically trick the mind through the combination of what the eye sees, what the mind believes in by combining previous experiences, and how the brain tries to interpret the visual stimuli into something that can be explained. Without much conscious effort, the brain is able to predict something even before it happens, allowing the person to avoid anything from bumping into another person while walking, to much more serious ones such as collisions while driving, among others. The human mind evolved as such that even through a limited amount of information available, it can still process this information and react accordingly in a short span of time, whether or not the information provided are all relevant or accurate. This trait can be attributed to the need for absorbing information, judging it, and processing it as quickly as possible, which is necessary for human life preservation during the beginnings of man’s evolution (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). Through visual illusions, psychologists are able to break down the human information-processing system, as well as establish the fact that this processing system is unique to every individual or culture. 2. What does the Law of Specific Nerve Energies say? Muller’s Law of Specific Nerve Energies state that the mind only has links to the nerves and the nervous system, but not to the physical manifestations of these objects, implying that people become aware of the physical environment through stimuli perceived through the nerves and subsequently interpreted by the mind (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). In addition, because the physical environment is perceived by the mind through the nerves, it is said that the nerves serve as the bridge between the mind and the physical environment. 2a. Did this law support or contradict Descartes’ work? Why? The Law of Specific Nerve Energies contradicts Descartes’ The World, mainly due to the differences between the two in terms of explaining how the mind reacts to stimuli, as well as to how perception happens and knowledge is formed. For instance, Muller’s law states that our mind is connected to the physical realm through our nerves, and that we gain knowledge by experiencing various stimuli that enter our information-processing system. However, Descartes rationally argues that the human mind is capable of creating knowledge even without any kind of stimuli, suggesting that the human mind and the physical environment are two separate entities that are independent of and can exist without each other’s interaction (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). Furthermore, Descartes explains that the brain mostly does the work by controlling the sense organs, limiting these sensations into nothing more than the conscious mind’s doings, whereas Muller on the other hand explains that the sense organs affect how the mind perceives objects depending on the kind of stimuli given. Thus, the difference between Muller’s law and Descartes’ work is that the former believes that the mind can only create knowledge through stimuli, while the latter believes that knowledge can be independently formed in the mind even without stimuli. 2b. Did this law support or contradict Kant’s work? Why? The Law of Specific Nerve Energies supports Kant’s work, more in comparison with Descartes’ theories. This is because Kant’s work mostly focuses on the combination of reasoning and experience to be integral in the creation of knowledge, and that prior to the development of this said knowledge, sufficient information learned through the senses happen first before reasoning occurs (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). These statements are in line with Muller’s law with regards to the importance of external stimuli in the processing of information, as well as the fact that human knowledge is limited to how much the mind can perceive through impulses sent out by the physical environment. 3. How did Helmholtz define the term “unconscious inference”? Unconscious inference was defined by Helmholtz to be the processes that occur automatically by relying on unconscious thought structures formed based on the end-results of past actions done (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). It is a form of intuition that happens as a product of a mental event due to the stimulation of the senses, and is able to assist decision-making rapidly through minimizing the exertion of conscious thought and reliance on past-events. These mental events are thought to be forgotten and usually reappear when stimuli similar to the original events trigger the senses. 3a. How did he use this concept to explain perception? Helmholtz used unconscious inference as a way to explain perception through the process of using past knowledge as a means to explain or understand stimuli experienced either at present or expected to happen in the future (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). For example, sensory stimulation triggers the formation of a mental event, which is stored in the brain. Once the same sensory stimulation occurs, the mind recalls the past mental event to reason out why and how the similar sensory stimulation occurs again. In addition, because each person’s past experiences are unique from one another, it is possible that individual perceptions of the same object or stimuli can differ from one person to the next, since their mental events may have been due to different stimuli. Thus, it is possible that within a group, even though they are given nearly the same amount of stimuli, their unconscious inference with regards to this even might be different, and this will make their perceptions dissimilar from one another. 4. What was Fechner’s response proposed solution to the mind-body problem? Fechner proposed to solve the long-standing mind-body problem by creating the philosophical foundations of psychophysics. Through psychophysics, Fechner was not only able to initiate the idea on the dual nature of the mind-body connection with respect to the physical environment, but also form the highly-relevant dividing line between philosophy and psychology, turning the latter into a measureable science, especially during the time when mental processes were harder to define and measure in comparison to physical processes (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). In the process of psychophysics, stimuli such as auditory and visual stimuli became measurable through the creation of various units of measurement for each kind of stimuli. This measurability of stimuli also allowed psychology to become part of the scientific realm, as well as lending some of its basic foundations to the formation of neurobiological sciences. Because of this development, it became much easier to assess the true relationship of the mind to the physical environment. 4a. What evidence did he offer for his position? Fechner tried to prove that there is a direct and measurable relationship between the intensity of the stimuli and how deep these are perceived. In order to prove that the sensory system is able to perceive differences in the intensity of the stimuli and that this can be plotted in a measurable scale, Fechner continuously asked participants if there are any noticeable differences between two stimuli concerned with weight differences (Fancher & Rutherford, 2011). Based on the perception of the participants, Fechner was able to conclude that it is possible to create a measurable relationship between stimuli and how a person perceives these stimuli. Also, small noticeable differences between the intensities of two similar kinds of stimuli could possibly change, depending on a person’s adaptation to the stimuli, previous experiences, or the capacity to detect any small changes. Reference Fancher, R.E. & Rutherford, A. (2011). Pioneers of psychology: a history. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Read More