Snake/rope - Errors of perception

R

rcscwc

Registered Senior Member
A very realistic scenario. On a path, in the dim light you see a snake/ropey object lying across.

You would react according to what you can determine it to be in-a-split-second. But perception in this case can be and in fact is INDETERMINATE. But probability is that you will "think" it is snake, and react as you would to a snake.

But remember, it could very well be a ROPE. But why is a snake perceived?

There is a close relation between mind and organs of perception. The senses convey a certain information to the mind, which forms a mental picture of the "reality". The mental picture of a snake is that of venomously deadly animal. In a split second, the mind imposes its picture of "reality" and you see a snake. Thus, not the sensory inputs modify the mind, but mind too can modify the senses and impose its reality on them.

If brain, buddhi or intellect, was the only player, to the exclusion of "something" higher, then you would immidiately conclude if it is a snake or a rope.

PS: A person who NEVER seen or heard of snakes will not be in a dilemma. He will conclude it is a rope, and may not even live to correct himself if it, indeed, is a snake.

PS: People are known to have died after being bitten by a non venomous snake.
 
rcscwc said:
A very realistic scenario. On a path, in the dim light you see a snake/ropey object lying across.

You would react according to what you can determine it to be in-a-split-second. But perception in this case can be and in fact is INDETERMINATE. But probability is that you will "think" it is snake, and react as you would to a snake.

But remember, it could very well be a ROPE. But why is a snake perceived?

There is a close relation between mind and organs of perception. The senses convey a certain information to the mind, which forms a mental picture of the "reality". The mental picture of a snake is that of venomously deadly animal. In a split second, the mind imposes its picture of "reality" and you see a snake. Thus, not the sensory inputs modify the mind, but mind too can modify the senses and impose its reality on them.

If brain, buddhi or intellect, was the only player, to the exclusion of "something" higher, then you would immidiately conclude if it is a snake or a rope.

PS: A person who NEVER seen or heard of snakes will not be in a dilemma. He will conclude it is a rope, and may not even live to correct himself if it, indeed, is a snake.

PS: People are known to have died after being bitten by a non venomous snake.
Click to expand...

Nice scenario. It might even include what the person in said rope/snake dilemma is thinking about as he sees the object. If he is thinking about ropes or other non-snake things, he might notice it and leap to the first thing in his short term memory. But then again if he has a paranoiac fear of snakes it would be obvious those would come to mind.
 
Maybe because assuming it's a snake is more likely to keep you alive than assuming it's a rope...
It's part of our heritage: assume it's dangerous until proven otherwise.
Any of our predecessors who thought the other way didn't survive to breed.
 
Oli said:
Maybe because assuming it's a snake is more likely to keep you alive than assuming it's a rope...
It's part of our heritage: assume it's dangerous until proven otherwise.
Any of our predecessors who thought the other way didn't survive to breed.
Click to expand...

Very true. But then again our societies are becoming so lax with survival instinct that maybe an obese man would see neither rope nor snake, but line of sausages.
 
That may be true one day, but the instinct is hard wired in.
 
Oli said:
Maybe because assuming it's a snake is more likely to keep you alive than assuming it's a rope...
It's part of our heritage: assume it's dangerous until proven otherwise.
Any of our predecessors who thought the other way didn't survive to breed.
Click to expand...

True.

Perfect example.. When I was dating my husband, he took me on a romantic walk in the botanical gardens. Was lovely. Lush vegetation, blah blah rest of romantic stuff. We were walking along a narrow shaded path and he was in front of me, bravely moving branches out of the way so that I did not get whacked in the face with them (yes, I know, romantic blah blah).

At one point I looked down and saw a rope like object on the path, sort of slither over his boots. I reacted as my instinct demanded I should. I screamed and started babbling incoherently, pushed him out of the way of danger (he is positive I was trying to shove out of the way so that I could run past). And like the brave soul I was, I proved evolution was correct and my flight instinct took hold. I turned and ran in the opposite direction after I saw that he was out of danger (well, he was blocking the path so I had to go in the opposite direction).. still screaming and babbling incoherently and doing the ugly crying that can sometimes befall the human species.

After he was able to catch up with me, not knowing what was wrong.. I had run a long way by that point screaming and babbling and doing the ugly crying.. he was able to decipher my babbling and heard the word "snake". He bravely went back to investigate (while mumbling about my sanity) and sure enough, I was right. That it was a harmless garden snake is beside the point. It could have been a dangerous snake.

And yes, I survived to breed.:)
 
The final chilling point is one actually has to see the rope for the thought process ever to take place.
My mother was once unloading the trunk of her car when she was bitten on the ankle by a copperhead rattlesnake.

DON'T THINK SHE THOUGHT IT WAS A ROPE!
 
Exterminate!!! said:
The final chilling point is one actually has to see the rope for the thought process ever to take place.
My mother was once unloading the trunk of her car when she was bitten on the ankle by a copperhead rattlesnake.

DON'T THINK SHE THOUGHT IT WAS A ROPE!
Click to expand...

^^^ is why you should never assume it is a rope.
 
Funny thing. In this scenario we also assumed that it was a dangerous snake that would also hurt us. For simplicity sakes I guess we could assume that the snake would harm us if it were indeed a snake.
As for the rope, maybe it was a booby trap. But again for simplicity sakes we will assume it is a safe rope, not tied to some deadly device.

But even at its simplest levels, our perception of the snake is manifested and our senses altered to put our self at protection. Whats to say that this example wouldn't be used for situations of prejudice? We were taught that prejudice is bad and that we should always analyze every situation thoroughly, but in this scenario we are only given a split second.

As far as statistics go (and I'm sure we know that a lot of statistics can be biased or misinformed but for the sake of discussion we'll take it at standard stats)... you are about to walk down a corridor or backalley and you see a white man and another you see a black man. Underlying conditions would be both men being scruffy or dirty, maybe even hiding a weapon. Now, even if you mix up the situations, or put the black man in a suit vs the white man in hooded sweater, the degree to which you put the personal threat level also has to do with your previous notions or understood statistical information based on the situation. You aren't able to interpret a person's intentions to hurt you, neither have you been in enough situations to have the experience to know which one is a better choice.

While that example is a very basic one, as humans we extrapolate our experiences and human emotions along to other things, and thats where it gets complicated. While extreme actions of prejudice can be prosecuted, there are a lot of blurred lines.

Perception can be altered by how we want to view things, and what fits more comfortably to what we can accept. I may automatically choose to see girls that dress up in short or revealing attire as heartbreakers or promiscuous if from my experience girls that do ended up cheating or breaking my heart. I would very well know that every situation should be given the analysis and information before coming to a conclusion, but out of sake of personal danger I choose to believe the former because it would protect me from harm.

Making choices based on indeterminate underlying factors is what gives us human qualities. Not knowing what is the right choice and rationalizing the choice we end up making is something that is not easily explained by scientific methods. Reminds me of the question of whether you can only save one patient out of 2 that come into a hospital and all u know is that one is a police officer and the other is a criminal.
 
Algernon said:
Good example of our prior knowledges and experience altering (or informing) our perceptions:
[quote, the degree to which you put the personal threat level also has to do with your previous notions or understood statistical information based on the situation. You aren't able to interpret a person's intentions to hurt you, neither have you been in enough situations to have the experience to know which one is a better choice.
Click to expand...
I read the section below and my first thoughts were "what f*cking difference does the colour of the guy's skin make, it's how he moves that indicates possible threat levels"
and then I realised (assumed?) that it's written from an American perspective? :shrug:

you are about to walk down a corridor or backalley and you see a white man and another you see a black man. Underlying conditions would be both men being scruffy or dirty, maybe even hiding a weapon. Now, even if you mix up the situations, or put the black man in a suit vs the white man in hooded sweater
Click to expand...
 
rcscwc said:
A very realistic scenario. On a path, in the dim light you see a snake/ropey object lying across.
Click to expand...

Grew up in an area with a lot of ropes and a lot of snakes.

Can't say I think as you outline.

Ambiguous objects I see as ambiguous. I tend to want to poke them with a stick. :) i.e. if I really can't make a determination my monkey curiosity kicks in.

Snakes tend to lie in ways that ropes do not, particularly angry snakes. Also the two really aren't that similar in general. If it was that dark one would probably miss the object all together.

Our subconscious visual pattern recognition is really way more sophisticated than many give it credit. For example rubber snakes look nothing like snakes to me even in the dark.
 
Yeah, but what if it was a real snake in a Halloween "rope" costume?
 
swarm said:
Grew up in an area with a lot of ropes and a lot of snakes.

Can't say I think as you outline.

Ambiguous objects I see as ambiguous. I tend to want to poke them with a stick. :) i.e. if I really can't make a determination my monkey curiosity kicks in.

Snakes tend to lie in ways that ropes do not, particularly angry snakes. Also the two really aren't that similar in general. If it was that dark one would probably miss the object all together.

Our subconscious visual pattern recognition is really way more sophisticated than many give it credit. For example rubber snakes look nothing like snakes to me even in the dark.
Click to expand...

THREAD OWNAGE!!!!
kudos
 
swarm said:
Grew up in an area with a lot of ropes and a lot of snakes.
Click to expand...
Which means that you are familiar with both.
Someone who wasn't that familiar with snakes (or ropes lying around) but WAS aware that he was in snake-occupied area would be subject to the initial reponse.
But it can be over-ridden.
 
How about "Hey, what's it like working with Samuel Jackson?"
 
Even if I thought it was a snake I would still investigate further. Even though I don't really have much experience with snakes I'm not afraid of them, so I guess some of those dumb ancestors managed to breed before getting bit. Or maybe I'm over confident in my ability to react quickly to situations :shrug: Probably both. I can be a bit of an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top