In the 1999 Hollywood blockbuster The Matrix, intelligent machines have imprisoned the human race in a state of virtual reality. They feed a computer program, the Matrix, into every brain to simulate an external real world and then harvest the imprisoned humans' biochemical electricity for their own energy needs. To the humans, their existence seems normal and mundane, but in fact, they are living an illusion.

Although the Matrix is fictional, our mind runs on its own type of virtual reality. The brain creates a model of the world that we assume is accurate most of the time. Yet in numerous instances, it is not. Visual illusions vividly illustrate the brain's mistaken interpretations. In some cases, it makes false assumptions about the world, distorting our perception.

This article was originally published with the title Re-creating the Real World.

4 Comments

1. 1. jputz 10:29 AM 8/6/12

   This is a good article. It accurately portrays how our brain makes a model of the world (I would call it a computer model, because our brain is a computer; electronic computers can also make similar models). One of the things that the illusions show is that our brain takes short-cuts to analyzing the world. For example, with texture gradient, your brain perceives that when you see the bricks on a wall of a building, the building is close while if it is just a red wall without visible bricks, your brain perceives that the wall is farther away. That the brain makes a model of the world makes sense, too, because we can only sense from a small part of the world at once. For example, part of my model of the my classroom includes the locations of all the kids in the room, even if I am talking with and seeing just one. This enables me to monitor the other kids in the room. Likewise, when I am driving, it is important for me to remember that there is a car on my right and slightly behind me, even if it is in the blindspot. Thanks for the great article.
   
   --Jeff Utz, M.D., NYC science educator

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. trevorinc in reply to jputz 08:57 AM 10/12/12

   Jeff Utz. I have taken the liberty to reformulate your comment in a way that avoids the way the brain is being ascribed psychological properties (the socalled mereological fallacy). Personally, I think the message is just as clear and every bit as scientific. It is not an attempt to ridicule any thing of what you write, only to illustrate that using brain and model is really not necessary.
   
   "This is a good article. It accurately portrays how we pay attention to the world (I wouldn't call it a computer as a computer is a piece of manufactured electronics and our attention system is a way of negotiating with the world). One of the things that illusions show is that we occassionally are misled by false information when we try to grasp what is in front of us. For example, with texture gradient, you perceive that when you see the bricks on a wall of a building, the building looks close while if it is just the red wall without visible bricks, you perceive that the wall seems farther away. Sometimes this is so, and at other times it is not, and we usually pick up various information that makes it possible for us to determine this. That we have selective attention makes sense, too, because we can only attend with our primary focus to a small part of the world in front of our eyes at once. For example, the way I pay attention in my classroom is to avoid being narrowly focused on one kid at a time, even if I am talking with and looking at just one. This enables me to monitor the other kids in the room. Likewise, when I am driving, it is important for me to be aware of the car to my right and slightly behind me, even if it is in a blind area of my visual field as it is oriented towards the front and head turning while driving confuses me."

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. jgrosay 07:27 PM 10/12/12

   What's reality? The surrounding material world makes only sense up to the point it has influence or interest for us, it doesn't matter about sub-atomic parts as strings, when our senses are not in the condition to directly watch it or other parts of nature. The "essence" of things is just the concept, representation or idea we have in our mind, nothing really exists outside that we perceive, and our mind is, at least for now, totally bound to our brains, and the concepts, be it spatial or imaging mental representations, are linked, or we will soon know to which, to concrete parts of our brain. Our mind is functional, tuned for survival (the catastrophic Eduard Punset said this), and what will happen in its end, or what kind of powers, punishments or rewards we will finally get remain a mistery for all of us, we just can infer from the words of Jesus "I won't drink again the fruit of the vineyard until in the house of the Father", that we will always have a body, we'll never be pure spirits, and that is a future I like, I'm very satified about the things my body and other of my material features can give me. Salut +

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Albert Fonda 12:22 PM 10/20/12

   Better late than never. trevorinc, the mereological fallacy has been defined as “the fallacy of confusing the part with the whole (or of confusing the function of the part with the telos, or aim, of the whole, as Aristotle would say).” First, forget telos; the sculptor had an aim but the stone had none, so that is one fallacy. Second, “confusing the part with the whole” would be a fallacy if one had ignored the implicit caveat of reductionism, which that a study of the parts illuminates but does not annihilate a study of the whole. Third, the words “brain” and “model” need not denotes physical parts of a physical whole, the human, but capabilities or functions embodied in the human (confusion between noun and verb). As much as selective attention is a function, so is modeling. Fourth, focus of selective attention on the car to my right and slightly behind me does not model the consequences should I suddenly notice my looming intended exit. Selective attention is a snapshot, whereas modeling is a rehearsal. Fifth, metaphors do have explanatory value, justifying their use.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this