Perception When I embarked upon this study of human perception, I did not anticipate learning any information that I would find new or exciting. After all, I had been perceiving things my entire life, and therefore felt experience had taught me all I needed to know about perception. However, as we continued to study perception, I began to understand that I had long confused my perception of reality with reality. This understanding had a dramatic impact on my approach to life: I began to teach my peers and professors with more respect and understanding, I developed a greater appreciation for philosophy and literature, and I began to question my own perceptions.

Perception and reality peacefully co-exist the majority of the time, but occasionally throw each other curve balls. Interestingly enough, nature has adapted to include some of these differences between perception and reality. There are species of both plant and animal that camouflage themselves so that predators will look at them and think they see a larger predator, rather than a prey species. Other species, such as the walking stick, camouflage themselves so that predators see nothing when they look at them. In this way, nature recognizes the differences between perception and reality.

For example, I used to believe that what I saw necessarily reflected reality. However, the drawings of M.C. Escher reminded me of nature's tricks concerning reality and perception. Looking at the drawings, I see one thing. Upon a closer look, I realize that what I believed I saw is impossible. Given that so much of perception is based upon experience and a person's ability to fill in the gaps between what they perceive and what they know to be "real," I had to wonder what in my reality allowed me to view things that did not exist. Thinking about that led me to wonder about the differences between my reality and the reality...

What type of filters do we use to process information and determine what it is that we have actually perceived?
Vision is not the only area where people perceive things differently. In fact, past experience fills in the gaps when people use their other senses. One example of this is when people hear a loud popping sound. In areas where people are used to violence and gunfire, this sound is interpreted as a gunshot. In other areas, where there is little gunfire, this sound is interpreted as a car backfiring. In still other areas, where there are no cars or guns, the sound cannot be identified. In this way, a person's past experience interacts with her perception of the same exact stimuli.

Even touch relies extensively on learning. If one takes take away a person's ability to use their other senses and force them to rely solely on touch, many people would find it difficult to discern certain items. When relying on touch, people use other clues, mainly visual, to determine how something will touch. For example, people know that porcupines have sharp quills, and are not forced to actually touch the quills in order to know that they are sharp. In fact, touch is one sense that is the most difficult to fool. If something feels soft, it is soft. However, touch is also an imprecise sense in most people. If I close my eyes and touch various items, I can tell you if they are hard or soft, cold or warm, and their shape, but I may not be able to tell you what they are. In the same way, if I look at a walking stick hiding in a tree,

I can tell you that I see a green stem-looking thing on top of the tree branch, but may not be able to tell you whether it is part of the tree or an insect.

Interestingly enough, even smell and taste, which seem innate, can be programmed as a result of experience. What each person perceives as sweet smelling…