Contemporary Authors

• Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision Sinauer Associates (Sunderland, MA), 2003
• Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently Hachette Books (New York, NY), 2017

1. Deviate : the science of seeing differently https://lccn.loc.gov/2016962966 Lotto, R. Beau. Deviate : the science of seeing differently / Beau Lotto. 1st edition. New York, NY : Hachette Books, 2017. pages cm ISBN: 9780316300193 (hardcover)9781478909156 (audio download)9781478909163 (audio bk.)9780316300179 (ebk.) 2. Why we see what we do redux : a wholly empirical theory of vision https://lccn.loc.gov/2010044136 Purves, Dale. Why we see what we do redux : a wholly empirical theory of vision / Dale Purves, R. Beau Lotto. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer Associates, 2011. xii, 262 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. BF241 .P87 2011 ISBN: 9780878935963 (pbk.) 3. Why we see what we do : an empirical theory of vision https://lccn.loc.gov/2002011765 Purves, Dale. Why we see what we do : an empirical theory of vision / Dale Purves, R. Beau Lotto. Sunderland, Mass., U.S.A. : Sinauer Associates, c2003. xi, 260 p. : ill. (chiefly col.) ; 24 cm. QP475 .P965 2003 ISBN: 0878937528 (pbk.)

• Beau Lotto - http://beaulotto.com/about-beau-lotto/

  Dr Beau Lotto is a globally renowned neuroscientist whose studies in human perception have taken him well beyond the scientific domain and into the fields of education, the arts and business. Public engagement, in the broadest sense, is at the core of what Beau does – whether he’s creating scientific experiments, giving talks or making TV programmes. By enabling people to experience what it is to be a scientist, Beau’s aim is to encourage them to see science not as an academic investigation but as a way of being that is relevant to every aspect of their lives: this discovery can be powerful enough to make people think differently about both themselves and the world around them. Beau believes passionately in the potential impact of his work on corporate innovation and creativity, and to this end his company, Lottolab Ltd, has teamed up with Purpose, one of London’s most innovative branding consultancies.

  Beau’s scientific research, carried out both in the US and the UK (he is attached to UCL), is based on a deep and fundamental interest in human beings. It is also influenced by a strong artistic instinct and a boldness of vision. Beau has always looked outside the lab environment in order to collaborate with those who share his interest in exploring different ways of seeing – and doing – things, be they scientists, artists, musicians, educationalists, designers or entire businesses. As a result his domain is as much a creative studio as a lab, whose output ranges from art installations and visual illusions to workshops designed for corporate leaders. There’s not a lab coat in sight.

  Beau’s ambitious ideas about the relevance of science to ordinary people have taken him to places where few other scientists have ventured – including into exhibition space inside the world’s best-known Science Museum, in London, where Lottolab was resident from 2010–12. While at the museum, Lottolab pushed public engagement in science to new levels by involving the public directly in experiments. Beau’s education programme led to the publication of the first-ever, peer-reviewed scientific paper written by schoolchildren (Blackawton Bees, published by the Royal Society).

  The potential impact of Beau’s work on corporate innovation and creativity has been recognised by branding consultant, Purpose Ltd, with which Lottolab is now collaborating. This partnership is currently developing several experiential products, including an interactive ‘digital tree’ in a prime London location; an augmented reality social network (in development in Silicon Valley); and, in collaboration with the Peter Baumann Foundation in San Francisco, a pop-up laboratory cum night club/cabaret – a format that Lottolab explored with great success during its Lates events at the Science Museum in London.

  His experimentalist, visionary approach to science is winning Beau Lotto an ever wider public audience; he has made significant contributions to two episodes of the BBC’s Horizon programme, filmed two programmes with National Geographic Channel and is currently working with PBS in the United States. One journalist suggested that Beau could do as much good for the public appreciation of science as Jamie Oliver has done for our appreciation of food and cooking. And Beau is in increasing demand as a speaker. He has given two TED talks, a relatively rare honour, which have had more than 1.6 million online viewers combined, and has been invited to speak at one of Google’s Zeitgeist events in 2013.

  Beau is in increasing demand as a speaker. He has given two TED talks, a relatively rare honour, which have had more than 1.6 million online viewers combined, and has been invited to speak at one of Google’s Zeitgeist events in 2013. He is an inspiring and motivational speaker and uses illusions, games and interaction to engage his audience.
  Speeches

  Innovation

  There are two aspect to innovation: efficiency and creativity. I.e. the ability to create novel solutions to a meaningful problem and ability to realise that solution. Indeed, innovation is itself inherent in both of these processes. In recent decades we focused – at times almost exclusively – to efficiency. Billions of dollars are spent every year by companies – and indeed individuals – in a never ending attempt to get more for less. And there’s actually good biological evidence to say that this is a good thing: In nature if two animals are set the same challenge, the one that deals with it most efficiently is also the one that is most likely to survive. If a bus is coming at you, well … you want to get out of the way as fast (i.e. efficiently) as possible. You don’t want to say … ‘ … hmmm … I wonder if there’s a different way of seeing this …’. But … is everything an oncoming bus? If you look at the world around you, we behave as if it is. But without ideas, there will be increasingly less to ‘efficientise’. Without creativity, one cannot have innovation. But we know from behavioural neuroscience that the requirements of creativity are different. They require questions, not answers, collaboration not competition, noise not sterility. This is not to say that creativity is – as most assume – a mysterious, messy and serendipitous process. That leap of faith, that ability to bring together two highly disparate ideas, is an apt description from the outside. But from the inside … there is nothing all that creative about creativity. It’s a wholly logical process. The challenge, then, is not practical but emotional, since creativity requires stepping into a place that the human brain hates to be: uncertainty. Hence, the biggest barrier to innovation is fear and blindness. But fortunately, evolution has given us an answer to uncertainty. Indeed, there is only one human endeavour where uncertainty is a good thing. Here, we will discuss what that one thing is … and by the next greatest innovation isn’t an external technical but an internal state of being.
  Change

  Change is at the heart of any campaign. In the case of politics, those currently in power emphasise stability, whereas those seeking power argue for change. But, there is no inherent value in either. Whether change is good or bad is – like everything else in life = context-dependent. Here, using principles in behavioural and perceptual neuroscience, we’ll explore those different contexts in order to discover what lives at the heart of change; why it’s often essential for success but equally the most feared of human activities. Indeed, to ask questions, especially ‘why?’, is – historically – dangerous. Which is why government organisation, businesses, religions and – ironically – our education systems are designed to reduce the risk of question-asking. There is one principle reason for this: All revolutions (and revelations) begin with a joke (i.e. ” … you mean it could be different from this …? “). We’ll see how and why questions and metaphor are mediators of change; why most questions are useless, since they don’t confront the most difficult barriers to change; and how change – when properly pursued – has no direction or goal. Change is a way of being that is fostered by one’s external, but also one’s internal environment. Which means change is personal and – when properly considered – inevitable.
  Education

  What is education for? When you watch children in most schools, it’s not obvious. Most it seems is a history lesson. Or at best a place to memorise and reiterate. This is because school largely is in the service of society and what it thinks is important. And much of our society is driven by the world of business and government targets. Because those worlds are motivated by efficiency, so too is our education curricula. And because the best route to efficiency is competition – which is also true in the natural world, again so too is education. But the world is changing – indeed it has changed. It is now more complex and uncertain than it ever has been before. And we know from nature that to succeed in increasingly uncertain worlds, one needs to know how to adapt, to find solutions to questions that haven’t been asked yet. Indeed to know how to ask and identify good questions. Doing so is at the basis of creativity. But increasingly creativity isn’t just for the arts; it’s a way of being that underpins innovation in all walks of life. But in our current system designed for remembering not thinking, we are losing a key skill that has enabled the human species to be so successful in its evolution: the ability to adapt. So how do we teach children creativity, adaptability – how do we teach them a way of being that enables not just knowing but understanding? Here using the neuroscience of perception, we will answer these questions, and will provide a concrete example in the world of science education where children became the youngest published scientists in history.
  Leadership

  What makes a good leader? When asked this question of a diverse audience, I’ll receive many, many different possible qualities that are ‘essential’. And yet, there are only three such descriptions that correlate with the success of a company. What are they and why do they matter? Here we will address these questions from the perspective of behavioural neuroscience, and consider a new answer: the quality of a leader is defined by how he/she leads others into uncertainty.
  Risk/Uncertainty

  Arguably one of the most dangerous things one can experience in life is doubt. During evolution, if your ancestors weren’t sure whether that ‘thing over there’ was a predator, well … it would have been too late. Resolving uncertainty is the fundamental problem that your brain evolved to solve. Thus, when presented with doubt, we hate it … and are genetically programmed to do so: Sea-sickness, and indeed most of our mental health problems being direct manifestations of our fear. The deep irony, however, is that anything interesting begins with a question. So taking the risk to step into uncertainty is an essential aspect of adaptation, which we know is at the root of success in all natural systems. What’s more, nature also tells us when it’s best to risk uncertainty. Here we discuss how and why everything is uncertain, and natures solution to it.
  Branding

  We do not exist in isolation, but in relationship to our world. The most essential aspect of that world is other people. Our relationships become meaningful according to the narrative of those relationships: the more nuanced, creative and personal the narrative, the more valuable it is and thus the stronger is the relationship. Imagine instead having a narrative that described another as the average man or woman. Not surprisingly, it’s not going to work out very well. It’s knowing how others deviate from the average which defines how well you know them. Branding is nothing more than telling stories that foster relationships. But brands treat people as the average, hence their stories do not foster what they truly need – indeed anyone needs, which is value, meaning and loyalty. Understanding the mechanisms and principles of behavioural neuroscience that enable relationships to start, as well as the relationships that enable them to be maintained (which are not the same mechanisms) is essential to any brand. And key to this is authenticity. So how can brands be authentic? How can they understand themselves and communicate that to their audience? These are the questions with which we will engage.
  Data

  There is no inherent value in any piece of data because all information is meaningless in itself. Why? Because information doesn’t tell you what to do. This is true even at the most fundamental level of our senses: seeing light. As such, resolving the uncertainty of information is what the brain evolved to do. Which means it never actually sees information in any direct sense, or even patterns therein. Instead we construct meaning from information according to our history of experience. And it’s that historical meaning that we see, experience and know. Here we’ll discuss – and experience – the underlying challenges that the brain has in discovering new relationships … and hence why innovation remains so elusive to most. We’ll explore how to see new meaning in data that has always been there, but remained hidden. In short, we’ll explore how to discover within not only new spaces of information, but more importantly spaces that we thought we had fully explored.

  Innovation Workshop

  In the words of Bob Dylan: “He who is not busy being born is busy dying”. What is true of an individual is true of any organisation, company and/or government. To live is to innovate. But how?! Using perceptual and behavioural neuroscience, we will explore what innovation really is, identify the two most fundamental barriers to achieving it and the framework that enables innovation in any organisation. We will consider innovation from a neuroscientific perspective because it’s our brain that underpins everything we know, think, feel and believe, from our deepest fears to our most creative inventions. Indeed, innovation operates using the same processes that the brain evolved to contend with the most fundamental challenge of the natural world. The day will last 4 to 6 hours depending on discussion, and will be less workshop and more lab, in that we will not only present and discuss information, but offer experiences that enable you to embody the ideas presented. By the end you’ll leave with an embodied understanding of essential nature of innovation.
  Seeing Differently:
  The route to innovation, leadership and learning.

  Our personal and cultural histories define perception, from our most insightful social innovations … to our most abstract thoughts that guide our personal decisions. This is because experience – both personal and shared – shapes your brain … literally. And since the structure of your brain determines what you see, it’s never possible to see the ‘information’ in front of you directly (which has no inherent meaning anyway). Instead, you only ever see the past behavioural significance (or ‘meaning’) of that information. In other words, we only see what was useful to see before.

  But if what I see now is a response grounded in the past, how can I ever ‘see differently’ in the future? Fortunately the neuroscience of perception – and indeed evolution itself – offers us an answer to this question. In short, the answer lies in understanding how the brain resolves its most fundamental challenge: uncertainty.

  The issue with uncertainty is that we are deathly afraid of it … and for good reason. When our ancestors paused because they weren’t sure that the thing in front of them was a predator … well it was too late. Those that paused were selected out, resulting in our brains that evolved take what is inherently uncertain and make it certain … quickly. Thus, certainty is a deep survival need, and uncertainty the cause of most contemporary social and emotional pathologies. Which means the the next greatest innovation is not going to be an external technology, but an internal way of seeing and doing. In short, fear not efficiency is the biggest barrier to success.
  Why?

  Changes that leads to innovation, leadership and learning all require letting go of certainty. Thus, understanding the relationship between uncertainty, experience and brain plasticity in creating perception is essential to understanding the principles of behavioural change … and why change is so difficult. Without this awareness, the ability to innovate, lead and learn will be limited, since at the core of these most essential and creative human behaviours is the ability to ‘see differently’ … to live with intention.

  As a neuroscientist who studies how the brain evolved to resolve uncertainty at the physiological, personal and social levels, my aim is to transform our understanding of change through discovery: It’s only through discovery that we embody the understanding that leads to resilience … i.e. the ability to share and adapt knowledge to your own social and personal context. To this end, in collaboration with behavioural scientists, producers and designers, we have created a one-day lab (not a workshop) for collective discovery. The lab assumes that your future success is more a function of the questions you ask – not the answers to derive. You (and we) will question whether creativity is in fact a mysterious, messy process irrelevant to business and education. We’ll explore why the three most important qualities of leadership involve uncertainty … and why ‘seeing differently’ is essential to succeeding in all aspects of the contemporary society.

  The day will last 5 to 7 hours (depending on discussions). We will focus on the experiential, through a combination of formal presentation, open discussion and participatory experimentation. The experiments will be literal i.e., they are not demonstrations. Rather than a how-to-guide that offers only a superficial translation of information, we will discover together and thus embody the knowledge we discovered. At the end, you will have a renewed sense of wonder, motivation and understanding that are the essential tools to see differently (though – whether in a corporate, educational or governmental context – seeing differently is ultimately a personal choice).
  Beautiful Mind:
  Creating compelling new narratives for customers

  Beau brings together the latest knowledge in neuroscience, behavioural science and design thinking to offer a new way of looking at customer and client behaviours. He pioneers understanding of perception and applies it to create transformational experiences. The world is changing at pace and that for many companies this creates the need for constant innovation. Only in this way can they stay relevant, stay ahead and stay in business. The fuel for innovation is seeing differently and thinking differently. This is what Beau does, he helps businesses to see and think differently.

  At the centre of Beau’s different world-view is the belief that you need to ask good questions to elicit transformational answers. But what is a ‘good’ question? And why – fundamentally – does it enable change? Good questions stimulate creativity and create compelling new narratives for our brains to adopt in order to think (and behave) differently. The argument requires an intuitive shift in corporate thinking, which typically looks for answers that improve efficiency.

  Beau’s style is entertaining and informative, he explains WHY and not just HOW. He is interactive and gathers live data throughout his presentation.
  Workshop options

  a. One-hour or less through stage performance (small to large groups)
  b. More than one-hour format for smaller groups where the format is more lab than workshop

  Why don’t we see the world as it is?

  Seeing the world is not only impossible, but pointless. First, objects don’t tell you how to behave, nor how they are necessarily useful. The significance of anything in the world is a function of its context. Take, for instance, water. Of course it has constraints. But those constraints aren’t aways what we think they are. E.g. you might not think you could build a house with water. But of course you can with water below a certain temperature (i.e. an igloo). What’s more, water has vastly different behavioural meanings for different animals depending on its size, lifestyle, etc. And even for a single animal (especially primates), its potential functions of vastly multifarious. Furthermore, and more importantly, our brain has no direct access to the world other than through our senses. What’s important about our senses is that they don’t sense things in the world directly – only the energy they emit / reflect / share. E.g. our eyes don’t see a surface directly, but rather it only senses the light reflected from that surface. This creates a tremendous – and fundamental – problem. Sticking with the example of surfaces, since the light hitting the surface can change (actually it can change in intensity a billion-to-one), it means the information the brain receives from any surface is constantly changing. Even more confusing is that different surface can actually reflect the same amount of light to the eye (e.g. a bright surface in dark light vs a dark surface in bright light).

  Point: We can’t literally see the world … we’ve no access to it. What’s more, the information that the world gives us is itself meaningless, since it could mean anything.
  Do you believe we can train ourselves to be truly creative, even as adults?

  Yes … we can train ourselves to be creative … but not formulaically. This is because the source of creativity is a way of being. In other words, it’s a framework from which creative methods manifest, not the method itself. Similarly, a metaphor isn’t creative, but the ability to find / create metaphors is. In short the most essential aspect of creativity is one’s approach to life; how one engages with life should vary depending on the problem at hand, but the principle behind the engagement is the same. This is why the aim of my talks is to raise the awareness of what that way of being need be. In other words to explain WHY we are creative, WHY creativity isn’t actually creative at all, WHY seeing differently is the source of creativity and WHY the fear of uncertainty is its engine … rather than the usual approach of WHAT is creativity; WHO is creative and WHAT are they like? WHERE is one creative, etc. While the latter can create information, information is not generalisable without a deeper understanding of the question why! To answer why is to create understanding from which one can answer their own how / what / where / when questions. If you just give someone a method, they’ve no idea why they’re doing what they’re doing, and as such they’ll simply reapply the same process to others conflicts / challenges / questions when in fact the method itself should be questioned and adapted.
  Are there certain questions we should be asking ourselves about our perceived reality?

  Yes and no. If a bus is coming towards you, best stepping out of the way rather than whether there’s a different way of seeing it. The problem is that we live our lives as if everything is a bus. Hence, we focus on process and efficiency. The real wisdom is in knowing what’s a bus and what isn’t, and in understanding that in some instances the best route to efficiency is itself creativity. Alter the context the efficient process I’m applying may no longer be relevant. This is the typical failing of many business / organisations. They – through a creative process – discover an efficient solution to a problem. But because they don’t understand WHY the solution worked, or because they incorrectly assume that a new problem looks ‘similar’ to the old one, they continue to use the same ‘efficient’ method – ie. they try to solve a problem using a method for which the method wasn’t meant to solve. But because of fear of challenging what they assume to be correct (‘method 1 is efficient’), they hold onto it rather than question it. In this sense, we frequently want to question what we assume to be true already. It’s in asking this question that is both the most dangerous but also where there is likely to be the biggest paradigm shift – without being able to predict the direction of that shift.
  What are the aims of the change lab project that you are working on at UCL?

  Change is to step from (perceive) certain to known uncertainty. Fundamental to who we are is to understand our approach to uncertainty. Thus, the aim of the change lab is two-fold: 1. To discover the principles of change, and 2. by making others an integral part of the process of discovery. The point of the latter is to foster a more empathetic view of oneself and others.
  How do you see the future of science education?

  The current UK government’s curriculum, which they suggest is a radical change in science education, does not teach children anything about what science really is. They mistakenly think the object of discovery is science. They also mistakenly conflate the core of science with its more superficial process / methodology. While of course the scientific method is essential, and while of course what we’ve discovered is important, what is at the core of good science is neither of these. Rather, science is a way of being. Indeed, it’s the only human endeavour that celebrates uncertainty, diversity, collaboration and is intrinsically motivating (i.e., it is its own reward). These principles of science are also the same values that define play. Hence … science can actually be reframed as play itself. Which means experiments are nothing more than games. The aim in reframing science in this way isn’t to bring people (young and old) to science by ‘making it fun’ – because science is actually very difficult (as is anything done well). Rather, the future of science education is to give children the skills to become adaptable, since being adaptable we be the core of their well-being and success in the future.
  You are working with Purpose on the first neuro-design lab, ‘The Beautiful Mind’. This sounds a very exciting project. How can you offer brands a new way of looking at customer and client behaviour?

  Branding aims to create a strong relationship with an audience through meaningful narratives. Essential to this relation, then, is authenticity, trust and bonding. The problem is that most brands don’t know how the brain actually creates relationships, or how social bonds are maintained. As such, they either miss the point, or treat individuals as averages (through market research). Which would be like trying to create – much less maintain – a relationship with your partner by treating them as the ‘average’ man or woman. That wouldn’t work very well … or at least not for very long. While none of us is unique, which means much of our behaviours deviate little from average, to know someone is to know how, when, where and – most importantly – why they deviate from the normal. What’s more, essential to human bonding are trust, authenticity, vulnerability, etc. By combining our collective expertise in design, engagement, neuroscience and behaviour we are better able to work with companies to create narratives that are truly meaningful to their audiences … and in doing so establish a sense of loyalty that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

  Furthermore, most consultants – and indeed business generally – think that the power / success is in finding the right answer. Hence, consultants usually come to a company with lots of ‘answers’ to problems that either they see or the company sees. We take a fundamentally different approach. Rather than emphasising answers, we focus on questions. A GOOD questions is where success lives. But discovering / creating a really good question is … really … difficult. But as scientists and designers, that’s what we are good at … asking good questions, and indeed understanding what actually is a good and why. In addition, we’re also skilled at the craft of discovering the answers.

  Finally, unlike most similar agencies, we are actually the source of the scientific understanding from which others use. In other words rather than trying to apply strategies, information, insights of others (usually from popular science books, which are inherently several years out of date once published), as scientists we are actually the source of that information. This gives us a tremendous advantage. Not only are we inherently contemporary but – more importantly – we truly understand the principles behind the information, not just the information itself. And as designers, we know how to share that understanding … not just with our clients, but with their hoped-for audience.

• 800 CEO Read - https://inthebooks.800ceoread.com/excerpts/articles/deviate-the-science-of-seeing-differently

  ABOUT THE AUTHOR

  Beau Lotto is a professor of neuroscience, previously at University College London and now at the University of London, and a Visiting Scholar at New York University. His work focuses on the biological, computational and psychological mechanisms of perception. He has conducted and presented research on human and bumblebee perception and behavior for more than twenty-five years, and his interest in education, business and the arts has led him into entrepreneurship and engaging the public with science. In 2001, Beau founded the Lab of Misfits, a neuro-design studio that was resident for two years at London's Science Museum and most recently at Viacom in New York. The lab's experimental studio approach aims to deepen our understanding of human nature, advance personal and social well-being through research that places the public at the centre of the process of discovery, and create unique programs of engagement that span the boundaries between people, disciplines and institutions. Originally from Seattle, with degrees from UC Berkeley and Edinburgh Medical School, he now lives in Oxford and New York. You can follow him on Twitter at @BeauLoyto.

• Inspire Nation - http://inspirenationshow.com/inspire-627-beau-lotto-deviate/

  MORE ON BEAU LOTTO:

  Dr Beau Lotto is a globally renowned neuroscientist whose studies in human perception have taken him well beyond the scientific domain and into the fields of education, the arts and business. Public engagement, in the broadest sense, is at the core of what Beau does – whether he’s creating scientific experiments, giving talks or making TV programmes. By enabling people to experience what it is to be a scientist, Beau’s aim is to encourage them to see science not as an academic investigation but as a way of being that is relevant to every aspect of their lives: this discovery can be powerful enough to make people think differently about both themselves and the world around them. Beau believes passionately in the potential impact of his work on corporate innovation and creativity, and to this end his company, Lottolab Ltd, has teamed up with Purpose, one of London’s most innovative branding consultancies.

  Beau’s scientific research, carried out both in the US and the UK (he is attached to UCL), is based on a deep and fundamental interest in human beings. It is also influenced by a strong artistic instinct and a boldness of vision. Beau has always looked outside the lab environment in order to collaborate with those who share his interest in exploring different ways of seeing – and doing – things, be they scientists, artists, musicians, educationalists, designers or entire businesses. As a result his domain is as much a creative studio as a lab, whose output ranges from art installations and visual illusions to workshops designed for corporate leaders. There’s not a lab coat in sight.

  Beau’s ambitious ideas about the relevance of science to ordinary people have taken him to places where few other scientists have ventured – including into exhibition space inside the world’s best-known Science Museum, in London, where Lottolab was resident from 2010–12. While at the museum, Lottolab pushed public engagement in science to new levels by involving the public directly in experiments. Beau’s education programme led to the publication of the first-ever, peer-reviewed scientific paper written by schoolchildren (Blackawton Bees, published by the Royal Society).

  The potential impact of Beau’s work on corporate innovation and creativity has been recognised by branding consultant, Purpose Ltd, with which Lottolab is now collaborating. This partnership is currently developing several experiential products, including an interactive ‘digital tree’ in a prime London location; an augmented reality social network (in development in Silicon Valley); and, in collaboration with the Peter Baumann Foundation in San Francisco, a pop-up laboratory cum night club/cabaret – a format that Lottolab explored with great success during its Lates events at the Science Museum in London.

  His experimentalist, visionary approach to science is winning Beau an ever wider public audience; he has made significant contributions to two episodes of the BBC’s Horizon programme, filmed two programmes with National Geographic Channel and is currently working with PBS in the United States. One journalist suggested that Beau could do as much good for the public appreciation of science as Jamie Oliver has done for our appreciation of food and cooking. And Beau is in increasing demand as a speaker. He has given two TED talks, a relatively rare honour, which have had more than 1.6 million online viewers combined, and has been invited to speak at one of Google’s Zeitgeist events in 2013.

  Beau is in increasing demand as a speaker. He has given two TED talks, a relatively rare honour, which have had more than 1.6 million online viewers combined, and has been invited to speak at one of Google’s Zeitgeist events in 2013. He is an inspiring and motivational speaker and uses illusions, games and interaction to engage his audience.

Lotto, Beau. Deviate: The Science of
Seeing Differently
Nancy H. Fontaine
Library Journal.
142.4 (Mar. 1, 2017): p98+. From Book Review Index Plus.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Library Journals, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/
Full Text:
Lotto, Beau. Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently. Hachette. Apr. 2017. 352p. illus. notes. index. ISBN 9780316300193. $28; ebk. ISBN 9780316300179. SCI
Lotto (neuroscience, Univ. of London) is an expert on perception who wants to disillusion readers of their outdated beliefs about how the brain works and show them how to make use of the latest developments in his field. He explains that we do not perceive the world as it is but rather as it has been useful to us to perceive both over the course of our lifetimes and over the course of human evolution. This in turn leads to certain biases and assumptions about ourselves, others, and the world. Lotto argues that these tendencies can limit people in many ways, not least of which are in the interactions we have with one another and our ability to innovate. With a science-based understanding of the brain, we have more tools to address these limitations. Filled with images demonstrating illusions and figures illustrating concepts, and making unique use of fonts and page layout, this accessible, intriguing title shows as well as tells. VERDICT A combination of popular science and selfihelp, this offering should appeal to scientifically inclined readers of popular psychology who are also seeking inspiration. [Prepub Alert, 2/21/16.]--Nancy H. Fontaine, Norwich P.L., VT
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Fontaine, Nancy H. "Lotto, Beau. Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently." Library Journal,
1 Mar. 2017, p. 98+. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A483702194 /GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=67fb5da4. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A483702194
1 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Reshaping the human brain: to see the
world as it really is, we must deviate
from the norm
Joji Sakurai
New Statesman.
146.5369 (June 2, 2017): p16+. From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2017 New Statesman, Ltd. http://www.newstatesman.com/
Full Text:
We live in an age of uncertainty. If the triumphs of Jeremy Corbyn, Brexit and Trump have taught us anything, it is that the world is deviating from our core assumptions. Perhaps that means we must deviate with it. Not necessarily in the same direction (certainly not the direction of bigotry and alternative facts), but in ways that allow us to adapt to the unexpected.
A new book, Deviate, by the neuroscientist Beau Lotto, offers intriguing solutions, not only for surviving but also for succeeding in a world that seems to blindside us at every turn. Lotto, an academic at University College London and founder of "Lab of Misfits" described as the world's first public perception research space--explores decades of research on the human brain to provide a map for navigating an unmappable reality. And he says the future entails shaking ourselves up, awakening from habitual thought patterns, rejecting the conventional wisdom. In short: deviating.
The book's first tenet sounds alarming. Neuroscience, the author explains, teaches us that it is impossible to grasp reality, that information is meaningless; and we will, in fact, know less after reading Deviate than before. Being delusional, in short, defines the human condition. We think we see the world as it is, but this is quickly shown to be nonsense when we consider that the humble stomatopod (a marine crustacean) has 16 visual pigments with which to make sense of its environment, whereas we have three.
Perception is a function of evolution, rather than reality. "We developed only to process light in a way that worked best for our species," Lotto says. Likewise, "pain is not a physically separate, external phenomenon. Like colour and everything else we experience in our awareness, pain takes place in the brain and nowhere else." In this way, ancient tropes of literature and philosophy--all is illusion, life is but a dream--are being proved correct by 21st-century brain research.
2 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Don't despair, Lotto urges: rather delight. Find freedom in delusion and creativity in chaos. By understanding the how and why of the brain, we can free ourselves from hardwired beliefs that shackle us to corrosive thought patterns and behaviours. By accepting that what we once mistook for "the truth" is merely a set of assumptions that have helped organisms survive through millions of years of evolution, we can begin to challenge such precepts, many of which have outlived their utility.
"Once we are aware of the fundamental principles of perception," Lotto writes, "we can use the fact that we don't see reality to our advantage ... Not seeing reality is essential to our ability to adapt."
How exactly? The author uses an array of real-life cases to argue that not only are these ideas academic, but they have profound implications for living better. He recounts the story of the Californian boy Ben Usherwood, blinded at the age of three, who developed a three-dimensional "visual" space by clicking his tongue --and so learned to play basketball and cycle around his neighbourhood. Usherwood prodded his brain to develop echolocation, the method bats use to navigate the world by interpreting echoes.
The paradox is that his solution became possible precisely because our eyes are not reliable windows on our world. If sight gave human beings a more accurate version of what is around us, Usherwood would have had no strategy to see in another way. "Revolutionary questions and the revolutions they start," Lotto writes, "come from demolishing old assumptions to institute new, wiser ones."
Deviation takes courage, however. The downside of the evolutionary mechanisms for survival is that they also forced us to avoid doubt. Lotto argues that the desire for certainty saves us--but also sabotages us. A tragic instance of this is many women who are struggling to escape from
3 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
domestic violence. He cites a multimedia project by the photographer Donna Ferrato that chronicles the long journey made by some women to choosing "the uncertainty of leaving over the certainty of continued violence".
But the very parts of the brain that sabotage us can also set us free. Because we are in a continuous process of generating assumptions about the world, we can choose to escape those neural patterns that block paths to fulfilment.
This realisation has profound implications for every aspect of life: work, love, political engagement and beyond. Acknowledging that we can't grasp reality frees each of us to use our unique "space of possibility", which Lotto defines as "the patterns of neural activity that are possible". This kind of recognition can breed compassion and tolerance (because no one else can perceive the world as you do) and make us better partners.
Trump's hubris, Islamic fundamentalism and Labour's new hard-left dogmatism (as obviously disparate as these may be) can all be seen as manifestations of a belief in privileged access to a single truth and reality. Yet neuroscience teaches us that there is no such thing. The humility to recognise that we live in a perpetual state of uncertainty--that this is our fate as human beings-- will allow us to be more loving, and more creative.
Evolution made us seek the comfort of certainty but also, paradoxically, seek freedom from certainty, to stay alive in the vortex of change. "Survival (and flourishing) requires innovation," Lotto says.
"We evolved to continually redefine normality."
So go ahead. Be a deviant. It may just help you live wisely in a world gone mad.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Sakurai, Joji. "Reshaping the human brain: to see the world as it really is, we must deviate from
the norm." New Statesman, 2 June 2017, p. 16+. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com /apps/doc/A497795915/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=73b83cf5. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A497795915
4 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Lotto, Beau: DEVIATE
Kirkus Reviews.
(Mar. 1, 2017): From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2017 Kirkus Media LLC http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text:
Lotto, Beau DEVIATE Hachette (Adult Nonfiction) $28.00 4, 25 ISBN: 978-0-316-30019-3
What is reality? Whatever you make of it, it would seem, to go by this sprightly look into the nature of things.Lotto (Neuroscience/New York Univ.), founder of the London-based Lab of Misfits and a popular TED talker, ventures into fascinating and puzzling territory in this book of popular science. The author examines the difference between reality, whatever that might be, and perception, our way of sensing and ordering the world, and he locates a meaningful gap between the two in which nearly anything can happen. Contemporary philosophers are inclined to doubt the existence of reality, period, but Lotto sidetracks that to look head-on at our subjective interpretations, backing his observations with explications of the experiments--some resembling magic tricks--that he has conducted in such matters as "body transfers" and dreaming. He peppers his thoughts with Buckminster Fuller-esque exclamations ("Illusions themselves...are an illusion!" "Celebrate doubt!") that sometimes seem faux-naif, especially in the context of his already telegraphic, elliptical (and ellipses-laden) prose: "But this won't be easy...because you're a frog...when it comes to perception." Among Lotto's most valuable contributions to our lay understanding of perception and thinking is his formulation of perception as an "ecology," meaning "the relation of things to the things around them, and how they influence each other." Given the differences between ecologies from one brain to the next, it's a wonder we can agree on anything. The author closes with thoughts on genius and creativity, observing, usefully, that "creativity is in fact a very basic, accessible process" that can be enhanced by changing the questions we ask and the assumptions we make, as well as by changing our educational modes ("creativity in education...gets crunched into a competitive economic model"). A little of the gee- whiz stuff goes a long way, but Lotto's provocative investigation into the mysterious workings of the mind will make readers just that much smarter.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Lotto, Beau: DEVIATE." Kirkus Reviews, 1 Mar. 2017. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com
/apps/doc/A482911557/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=6667fe9d. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Gale Document Number: GALE|A482911557
5 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Deviate: The Science of Seeing
Differently
Patricia Smith
Booklist.
113.14 (Mar. 15, 2017): p9+. From Book Review Index Plus.
COPYRIGHT 2017 American Library Association http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/publishing/booklist_publications/booklist/booklist.cfm
Full Text:
Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently.
By Beau Lotto.
Apr. 2017.352p. illus. Hachette, $28 (9780316300193); e-book, $14.99 (9780316300179). 612.
Lotto, a world-renowned neuroscientist and TED Talks speaker, takes readers on a mind-bending journey in this culmination of more than 25 years of research. Lotto literally challenges the way we see the world by dissecting how our brains perceive our environments and how we make meaning out of what our senses gather. Lotto compares our perceptions with those of animals-- from the minuscule bumblebee, which evolved to see color long before humans did, to the majestic reindeer, which can see ultraviolet light--and reveals that, visionwise, our worldview is comparably narrow. Through numerous optical illusions, hands-on experiments, and disorienting uses of typography, Lotto engages with readers directly and actively. His passion for science, art, and the human experience is undeniable, and his intentions are clear: to inspire readers to go on their own journeys of self-discovery and to challenge the delusions built into our brain. Lotto's inquiry is densely packed with thought-provoking information, from historical findings to modern-day experiments, and any reader interested in science, psychology, philosophy, or self- improvement will find this groundbreaking work simultaneously engrossing and entertaining.-- Patricia Smith
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Smith, Patricia. "Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently." Booklist, 15 Mar. 2017, p. 9+.
PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A490998360/GPS?u=schlager& sid=GPS&xid=e84c754c. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A490998360
6 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Why we see what we do redux; a wholly empirical theory of vision
Reference & Research Book News.
26.2 (Apr. 2011): From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2011 Ringgold, Inc. http://www.ringgold.com/
Full Text:
9780878935963
Why we see what we do redux; a wholly empirical theory of vision. Purves, Dale and R. Beau Lotto.
Sinauer Associates
2011
262 pages
$59.95
Paperback
BF241
Purves (neurobiology, Duke U.) and Lotto (ophthalmology, U. College London, UK) argue that the visual system in humans contends with the uncertainty of sensory information by generating perceptions in an empirical manner through trial-and-error interactions over time with a world that is otherwise hidden, that although people think they see the world as it is, they see a subjective world that is determined by associations made between images and behavior over the course of species and individual history. They explain the rationale for this way of understanding vision and how this theory works for each of the basic qualities of human visual perception: seeing lightness and brightness; color; intervals, angles, and object sizes; distance and depth; and motion.
([c]2011 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Why we see what we do redux; a wholly empirical theory of vision." Reference & Research
Book News, Apr. 2011. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A253496616 /GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=daab1678. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
7 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Gale Document Number: GALE|A253496616
8 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Looking Backward
Alan Gilchrist
Nature Neuroscience.
6.6 (June 2003): p550. From Book Review Index Plus. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn0603-550
COPYRIGHT 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/neuro/index.html
Full Text:
Author(s): Alan Gilchrist [1]
Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision by Dale Purves and Beau Lotto
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2003 $42.95 , pp 260
To the surprise of most people, vision has not yet been explained scientifically. There is no agreement on how we see the size of an object (at various distances), its color, and whether it is moving or not, simply by looking at it. How does the rich, three-dimensional world of visual experience arise from the ambiguous, seemingly impoverished two-dimensional image projected onto the retina? Imagine that a retinal image contains a trapezoidal region of a given intensity. Its shape could come from a rectangle lying down or a trapezoid standing up. Its intensity could come from a white surface in dim light or a black surface in bright light. How does the visual system compute an answer (that is, generate a percept)? [illus. 1]
Purves and Lotto must be applauded for defining this "pervasive ambiguity of retinal stimuli" as the central problem. In the finest tradition of giving science away, they bring this problem to life using a series of computer-generated illustrations that delight the eye and edify the mind. The coverage is reasonable, with chapters on lightness, color, three-dimensional space and motion. Sensory physiology is thoroughly addressed, which is not surprising given the status of the senior author as a leading neuroscientist. More surprising is the authors' bold critique of sensory physiology. Dismissing current research trends (such as channels) as fads, they argue that neuroscience has failed to address the ambiguity problem. They assign a vital role to phenomenology and suggest that rapid progress in neuroscience requires an understanding of the "overarching strategy of vision."
The authors argue at great length that the ambiguity of the retinal image is solved by the human visual system in a "wholly empirical" fashion. Whereas other theories invoke inferential processes, contextual patterns or maximum simplicity, Purves and Lotto speak of probabilities extracted from past visual experience. Consulting my stored memories of similar trapezoidal images, I discover that in most cases, the object turned out to be a rectangle. Thus I see a
9 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
rectangle.
Past-experience theories have historically moved in and out of fashion. Although not mentioned by Purves and Lotto, Adelbert Ames and his colleagues promoted the same theory, called transactionalism, in the mid-20th century, illustrating it with such engaging demonstrations as the Ames distorted room and the rotating trapezoidal window. Although appealing at a glance, such accounts are not easily made concrete, and they have difficulty standing up to a series of logical and empirical challenges.
For example, if seeing requires past experience, how does a newborn see? In the 18th century, George Berkeley argued that touch educates vision. However, this merely displaces the problem. Tactile stimulation is even more ambiguous than retinal stimulation, and the weight of the evidence shows that vision educates touch, not vice versa. Purves and Lotto speak of what the ambiguous stimulus "turned out to signify in past experience." But exactly how did it turn out thus? What is the source of feedback that resolves the ambiguity? Here the reader wishes that their solution could have been described with some of the same concreteness as their description of the problem.
Neither do the authors explain how we perceive novel or unlikely objects. If we are more likely to encounter rectangles than trapezoids, how do we ever perceive a trapezoid?
Purves and Lotto repeatedly say that vision is based on the past experience of both the species and the individual. They offer evidence of the former, but scant evidence of the latter. The term empiricism has always referred to the latter, and indeed the former is actually its opposite, as it is innate in each individual.
Several of their demonstrations illustrate the well-known visual assumption of light from above. But all of evolution has taken place under the sun. Is it realistic, then, to think that every organism must learn this principle from scratch? Wayne Hershberger has shown that chicks raised entirely with light from below still interpret ambiguous images consistent with light from above.
Infant habituation studies show that size and shape are perceived correctly on the first day of life. The baby regards a small nearby object and a distant larger object as different even when they make the same retinal image. But newborns can recognize an object placed at two different distances as the same object, despite the different retinal size, or the same rectangle placed at different slants. How can the newborn learn something so sophisticated in a matter of hours? None of this evidence is considered in the book.
No one denies that perceptual learning occurs under specific conditions. But Purves and Lotto have not made a case for the heavy lifting they attribute to it.
Although the title of their book echoes Koffka's famous question, "Why do things look as they do?" Purves and Lotto generally neglect the work of Koffka and the other Gestalt theorists, work that demolished the past-experience theories of an earlier day. Purves and Lotto dismiss the Gestalt emphasis on contextual information, writing, "the context is simply a collection of other patches whose respective ambiguities are just as profound as the ambiguities of the designated
10 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
targets." But as Gibson has brilliantly shown, the visual system responds to patterns of patches, and these are not ambiguous in the way that individual patches are.
The non-specialist will appreciate the wonderful illustrations that fill this book and the clear introduction to the fundamental challenge of vision. But in explaining how vision succeeds, Purves and Lotto ignore crucial pieces of evidence. And they add little to the debate that is new.
Author Affiliation(s):
[1] Alan Gilchrist is in the Psychology Department, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102, USA.
Email: alan@psychology.rutgers.edu DOI: 10.1038/nn0603-550
Alan Gilchrist
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Gilchrist, Alan. "Looking Backward." Nature Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 6, 2003, p. 550.
PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A185558412/GPS?u=schlager& sid=GPS&xid=f986d21c. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A185558412
11 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
A framework for vision's bag of tricks
Vincent A. Billock
Science.
300.5620 (May 2, 2003): p742+. From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2003 American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.sciencemag.org/
Full Text:
Why We See What We Do An Empirical Theory of Vision by Dale Purves and R. Beau Lotto Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2003. 272 pp. Paper, $42.95. ISBN 0-87893-752-8.
Every researcher working on perception has a mental catalog of interesting visual phenomena. Several years ago, Dale Purves, an eminent neurobiologist, began revisiting many of these classics and questioning the standard explanations for them. This research was guided by what Purves and his colleagues call "an empirical theory of perception." They posit that visual mechanisms evolve and develop to exploit statistical likelihoods in natural images. Neural activity is thus shaped by the prior successes and failures of visually guided behaviors responding to similar retinal stimulation (empirical feedback). Consequently, what we see accords with what prior images evoking similar neural activity usually turned out to be.
Why We See What We Do, Purves and R. Beau Lotto's new book on this theory, will remind vision researchers of James Gibson's and David Marr's seminal efforts, and it may prove as influential. Gibson introduced the ecological approach, which focused on the analysis of invariant features of information in the optical stimulus while ignoring neural processing (1, 2). The approach led to many insights but was limited by a reluctance to broaden its interests or to incorporate other advances in perception and neuroscience. Its dismissal of numerous visual illusions and phenomena as "unecological" contributed to an unfortunate estrangement from the rest of the vision community. Marr's computational theory of vision was more ecumenical (3). He began by asking, what information is essential for solving a particular visual problem? Insights derived from that analysis then had to be turned into algorithmic or neural models--a tricky process that Marr tried to facilitate by offering several problematic rules.
Purves and Lotto take an approach superficially closer to that of Gibson, with its emphasis on perception-action interactions and regularities of information in optical stimuli. However, their empirical theory regards optical information per se as often ambiguous. Rather than resonating to Gibson's optical invariants, the visual system (partially hardwired by evolution and modified during individual development) makes reflexive decisions based on probability. In this regard, the empirical theory is more simpatico with Marr, whose binocular vision models use probabilistic assumptions about correspondences between points stimulated in both eyes.
After Marr and Gibson, many vision researchers despaired of finding an elegant theory of vision. For example, V. S. Ramachandran compared the evolution of visual mechanisms to the improvisations of hackers and described the visual system as "a bag of tricks." (4). Purves and
12 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Lotto neither defy this insight nor wallow in it. Their empirical approach accepts the modularity of vision and the ad hoc nature of each mechanism's development. They rely on (though do not model) the ability of trainable neural networks to capture image regularities and likelihoods, which they analyze in novel and ingenious ways. Crucially, they embrace visual illusions as clues to the probabilistic biases wired into the system. For example, they take three important two- dimensional contrast illusions and show that each corresponds to the pattern of stimulation induced by illumination of a more common three-dimensional, real world stimulus. The authors apply this approach to a variety of problems in the perception of contrast, form, motion, color, and depth. Their casebook presentation keeps the work accessible by imparting a sense of the approach without imposing a rigid set of rules.
The authors' perspective yields some interesting insights. Consider an atypical example from color vision (an interest of mine): Humans have two color-opponent mechanisms: one signals red or green, the other signals blue or yellow. I could offer explanations for the detailed properties of these mechanisms, explanations based on the necessity of sampling and transmitting the spectral variance of natural images using the least neural bandwidth. Purves and Lotto emphasize that two color-opponent channels give rise to four well-spaced opponent hues and that four such labels are the minimal requirement to solve the problem of segmenting a surface (the famous four-color map problem). I am enthusiastic about this idea not because it displaces anything else I know about color, but because it provokes new lines of thought (such as implications about the number of spatial mechanisms necessary to segment a scene by texture and the use of graph theory in the design of plates for clinical tests of deficiencies in color vision).
Purves and Lotto do not attempt to account for every nuance of the perceptual phenomena they study, and they make only a sketchy effort to tie the explanations they derive to actual or inferred neural mechanisms (a surprising choice, given their backgrounds). For example, in discussing why chromatic brightness should differ from luminance, they ignore models of how brightness is generated (by nonlinear summation between luminance and color mechanisms) and why it varies (because the relative weights in the summation may be softwired). This work seems ideal for Purves and Lotto to incorporate (by making the summation parameters a function of experience). I suspect that the authors eschew such modeling because they are influenced by trainable neural networks whose hidden layers are seldom so interpretable.
Specialists without such inhibitions may implement some of Purves and Lotto's theories as algorithmic or neural models. Considerable work could also be done on the more genetic aspects of their theory. The book's influence may be enhanced because it arrives just when much of the research needed to flesh out an empirical theory has become available. There is a growing literature on the multiscale statistics of natural images, and there has been much recent progress on incorporating Bayesian decision-making into visual models. Similarly, rigorous treatments of the interactions between perception and action, the dynamics of neural activity patterns, and the dependence on the system's prior history are hallmarks of recent work in sensorimotor research and complexity theory.
Purves and Lotto, although clearly aware of many of these developments, have not yet attempted to fully incorporate these findings in their own approach. A book that did so would appeal to a smaller (and more mathematically inclined) audience. The real test of Why We See What We Do
13 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
will be whether it inspires specialists (with the ability to integrate work across these areas) to create fully fleshed-out models.
References
(1.) J. J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1966).
(2.) J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1979).
(3.) D. Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1982).
(4.) V. S. Ramachandran, in The Utilitarian Theory of Perception, C. Blakemore, Ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990), pp. 346-360.
The author is with Veridian Engineering at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Suite 200, 5200 Springfield Pike, Dayton, OH 45431, USA. E-mail: Vince.Billock@wpafb.af.mil
Billock, Vincent A.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Billock, Vincent A. "A framework for vision's bag of tricks." Science, vol. 300, no. 5620, 2003,
p. 742+. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A101941700/GPS?u=schlager& sid=GPS&xid=b05c76d6. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A101941700
14 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Why We See What We Do: An
Empirical Theory of Vision
George Wittenberg
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 19.1 (Mar. 2005): p63. From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2005 Sage Publications, Inc. http://nnr.sagepub.com/
Full Text:
Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision
Dale Purves and R. Beau Lotto
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 2002, 260 pages DOI: 10.1177/1545968305274625
This is an ambitious attempt by a senior neuroscientist and a vision scientist both to explain principles of visual perception and to question the dogma of feature detection. This brings to mind Francis Crick, who, like Purves, began to study vision late in his career. Crick once related a response to his popular lecture on the subject, which I paraphrase: "Why you think vision is so complicated? Crick: How do think it works? A: I imagine it's like television. Crick: But who's watching the television? A: Oh!" The reader may have several experiences like Crick's interlocutor during the course of reading this book. The central portion uses illusions to demonstrate systematically and convincingly how the connection of perception to light falling on the retina is not as direct as one might think. The environment determines the retinal image, but the reverse is not true. The concept of feature detection is poorly suited to disambiguating retinal images. Rather, visual processing in the brain must guide behavioral responses to the environment. Concepts such as "receptive fields" and "encoding" may have to go by the wayside.
The relationship of visual neuroscience to rehabilitation may seem tenuous to some, but I suspect that it would not to the authors of this monograph. Purves and, particularly, Lotto are interested in ecologically relevant, visually guided behavior and assert that vision can only be understood in terms of action in the environment. This philosophical connection is not developed practically in this volume, however, so the practical applications seem fairly remote. On the other hand, this is a beautifully produced book that will appeal to a wide audience. I have received enthusiastic responses from both a 7-year-old who enjoyed the illusions and an engineer who learned something new about color constancy.
George Wittenberg, MD, PhD
15 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Department of Neurology
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Medical Center Blvd, POB 571207 Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1078 gwittenb@wfubmc.edu
Wittenberg, George
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Wittenberg, George. "Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision."
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 19, no. 1, 2005, p. 63. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A141215616/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS& xid=1bc9f680. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A141215616
16 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Book World: Objective reality vs. what
your brain perceives
Eliezer J. Sternberg
The Washington Post.
(June 9, 2017): News: From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2017 The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Full Text:
Byline: Eliezer J. Sternberg
Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently By Beau Lotto
Hachette Books. 332 pp. $28
---
"Guys please help me - is this dress white and gold, or blue and black? Me and my friends can't agree." On Feb. 25, 2015, a photo posted on Tumblr of a party dress led to a social-media firestorm as thousands debated what color it was. Many saw it as blue and black, yet others swore it was white and gold, while still others saw the color scheme switch before their eyes. The phenomenon of "the Dress," like other optical illusions, suggests that the human visual system can be tricked into misinterpreting reality. However, in his new book, "Deviate," neuroscientist Beau Lotto suggests a more drastic interpretation: We never see reality.
Since all perception arises from neuronal processing in the brain, Lotto argues, we don't experience reality directly, but rather the brain's construal of reality. We experience an interpretation. It's a thrilling and deeply philosophical point, and Lotto expresses it well. Many who write about the notion of reality and optical illusions would take this opportunity to sensationalize their work by claiming that, since we don't truly perceive reality, reality does not exist. One certainly doesn't imply the other, and to his credit, Lotto resists this temptation and instead makes a more measured case: "There is an objective 'truth' or reality, (BEGIN ITAL)but our brains don't give us access to it(END ITAL)." This may seem like a subtle distinction at first, but in the era of "alternative facts," the premise that there is an objective reality, a concrete truth from which perceptions and perspectives arise, is foundational to science and makes for a powerful driving force in Lotto's work.
Peppered with quirky (albeit occasionally distracting) illustrations that parallel the quirks of perception, "Deviate" is an entertaining read that raises fascinating questions about how we perceive the world. Aside from being an accomplished scientist, Lotto is a talented writer who uses illustrative examples and visual experiments to dazzle and to teach.
17 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
But "Deviate" is not really about the science of perception. Rather, Lotto's goal is to show how understanding the biases in our own perception, and intentionally trying to deviate from them, can help us "see differently." Lotto argues that being aware of your assumptions and biases (basically, being self-aware) will "start changing not just your brain and your perceptions, but your whole way of being as a human."
Instead of using neuroscience to follow through on this premise, however, Lotto veers into well- worn self-help tips. He relies too often on platitudes such as "we ARE our assumptions" and such empty concepts as "the physics of No." Lotto devotes 10 pages to the advice "JUST STOP," by which he means we should actively suppress our unpleasant thoughts or urges. He goes as far as to make the medically unsound suggestion that people who suffer from panic attacks can and should simply "ignore them."
Short on concrete explanations and experimental results, most of the science in the book comes in the form of references to the brain's obvious complexity ("the cells that make up your brain form 100 trillion connections") or broad declarations of how the brain might work: "Your brain does not make big jumps."
For someone who is arguing that there is an objective truth we can strive to perceive despite our biases and assumptions, Lotto misses a chance to showcase our main instrument in the pursuit of that reality: science. Science is the ultimate, systematic search for truth through hypothesis and prediction, experimentation and observation, drawing conclusions and establishing fact. So why does Lotto, a renowned perceptual neuroscientist, bury the science under prepackaged, superficial aphorisms?
Perhaps the reason has to do with one of Lotto's own assumptions: that people find science boring. Lotto writes that when you hear the word "science," "you're likely to be thinking that science is about the sterility of lab coats and unimaginative facts."
It is precisely that kind of thinking that is so emblematic of the post-factual age we live in. Facts aren't "imaginative." They are dry and boring and factual. But as Lotto expresses so eloquently, since we cannot directly perceive reality, it's on us to navigate the spaces between bias and assumption to come as close as possible to determining what is objective and true. If we neglect this challenge, the challenge posed by scientific inquiry, we are left to indulge only in that which confirms our preconceptions.
While thousands of people debated online about the color of a dress, some wondered why anybody cared about something so seemingly banal. Lotto contends that the illusion inspired such interest because it defied viewers' sense of reality, exposing the interpretive nature of perception. Did people really want to know the truth, or were they merely seeking confirmation of their own perspectives? Let's hope it was the former, because if we acknowledge that we have a fragile grasp of the fabric of reality - that from the outset we merely hold on to the fringes - then it follows that if we cease in our pursuit of objective truth with the rigors of science, all that remains is illusion.
---
18 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MA...
Sternbergis a neurologist at Yale-New Haven Hospital and the author of "NeuroLogic: The Brain's Hidden Rationale Behind Our Irrational Behavior."
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Sternberg, Eliezer J. "Book World: Objective reality vs. what your brain perceives." Washington
Post, 9 June 2017. PowerSearch, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A494924001 /GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=1077d899. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A494924001
19 of 19 1/23/18, 9:28 PM

Fontaine, Nancy H. "Lotto, Beau. Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently." Library Journal, 1 Mar. 2017, p. 98+. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A483702194/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=67fb5da4. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Sakurai, Joji. "Reshaping the human brain: to see the world as it really is, we must deviate from the norm." New Statesman, 2 June 2017, p. 16+. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A497795915/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=73b83cf5. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. "Lotto, Beau: DEVIATE." Kirkus Reviews, 1 Mar. 2017. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A482911557/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=6667fe9d. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Smith, Patricia. "Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently." Booklist, 15 Mar. 2017, p. 9+. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A490998360/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=e84c754c. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. "Why we see what we do redux; a wholly empirical theory of vision." Reference & Research Book News, Apr. 2011. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A253496616/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=daab1678. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Gilchrist, Alan. "Looking Backward." Nature Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 6, 2003, p. 550. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A185558412/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=f986d21c. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Billock, Vincent A. "A framework for vision's bag of tricks." Science, vol. 300, no. 5620, 2003, p. 742+. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A101941700/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=b05c76d6. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Wittenberg, George. "Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision." Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 19, no. 1, 2005, p. 63. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A141215616/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=1bc9f680. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018. Sternberg, Eliezer J. "Book World: Objective reality vs. what your brain perceives." Washington Post, 9 June 2017. Book Review Index Plus, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A494924001/GPS?u=schlager&sid=GPS&xid=1077d899. Accessed 23 Jan. 2018.

• Quartz
  https://qz.com/973116/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-we-evolved-to-be-curious/
  Word count: 2294

  A neuroscientist explains why we can’t see the world objectively—and humanity is better for it
  A child imitates using a pair of binoculars as Pope Francis leads the Angelus prayer from the window of the Apostolic palace in Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican August 2, 2015. REUTERS/Max Rossi - RTX1MQ3R
  Seeing is believing. (Reuters/Max Rossi)
  Written by
  Georgia Frances King
  May 03, 2017

  Humans have a primal, biological imperative to maintain the status quo, but seeking out answers to the unknown is also incredibly important to evolutionary innovation.

  This dichotomy creates all sorts of kerfuffles. We’re taught to rid ourselves of implicit biases that don’t serve society and to seek out objective answers in the world around us. But if we didn’t evolve to see life through an abstract lens, we would have never began shaping tools from stone or having the bravery to eat oysters, nonetheless devising the scientific experiments that revealed the natural laws of the universe. Perception is at the heart of these human traits—as well as of curiosity itself.

  Neuroscientist Beau Lotto is one of the world’s leading researchers on the nature of perception. His TED talks—on what optical illusions can teach us about sight and the relationship between science and playfulness—have been viewed by millions of people, and his latest book, Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently, challenges the very notion of how we think we see. He believes that if we only regarded each other and our environments objectively, we would never see the possibility in the world around us. By encouraging curiosity and learning to recognize and analyze our biases, we can create a culture driven by creativity and experimentation instead of safe stoicism.

  We spoke with Lotto about how we can change the way we see the world—and therefore begin to change it.

  How do we misperceive perception?

  We think we have an objective view of the world—that our perceptions are accurate representations of it. But we didn’t evolve to see the world the way it is.

  Why did we evolve to see the world subjectively?

  People have this assumption that if they don’t see the world objectively, it’ll create chaos. But by not seeing the world objectively, it actually creates possibility. It creates freedom. Accuracy is not the same thing as utility: I might see a rock accurately, but seeing it accurately doesn’t tell me what to do with it. If one of our ancestors saw a rock, they could have seen it with possibility and opportunity and shaped it to become a tool. Our brain evolved to take what is meaningless and make it meaningful, what’s useless and make it useful.

  Our brain evolved to take what is meaningless and make it meaningful, what’s useless and make it useful. The other aspect is that our world is not static—it’s constantly changing. If we didn’t have a brain that could change with the world, then we would have been selected out a long time ago. In fact, the most successful systems are the ones that are adaptable. Being able to have flexibility in our perception means we can adapt to a changing world.

  How much of this is learned and how much is inherited?

  We come into the world with a brain that’s still incredibly plastic: It can’t take care of itself properly because it’s trying to learn the environment it’s just been born into. If you come into the world completely rigid and ready to go, that’s a very efficient strategy, as it allows you to immediately get away from a predator if needed. It’s very important, evolutionarily speaking. But what happens if you’re unexpectedly born into a completely different world? What if your mother was born in the African savannah and then you are born in snow in Alaska? Well, now you’re screwed. But because our brains are especially adaptable early on, we can adapt to whatever our local environment is. This is one of the reasons humans have been able to occupy such a diversity of niches that no other animal can.

  There’s a good example I’ve heard you use a few times in relation to this. To paraphrase from Deviate:

  “When you are sitting in your community, sheltered and protected, where everything is momentarily predictable, the last thing you want to do is say, “Hmmmm, I wonder what is on the other side of the hill?” Bad idea! The probability of dying just suddenly increased considerably. But it is because of that “mad” individual that the group has a better chance to survive in an environment that is dynamic—by learning what dangers or benefits are on the other side of that hill, and perhaps discovering new spaces of possibility that the group hadn’t known existed.”

  We’re all subject to this binary biological push-and-pull every day: to stay safe, or to innovate. What gave those first homo sapiens the courage to gaze over that hill?

  This has to do with uncertainty and how dying is easy, living is hard. Our brains and bodies evolved to not die—evolution works from failure, not from success. But being optimized to not to die is not the same thing as being optimized to live. A lot of that is about reducing uncertainty. Our brains and behaviors evolved to try to minimize uncertainty in almost all circumstances.

  If it’s hardwired into us in that way, how can we overcome this fear of the unknown?

  That’s the irony, right? We don’t go over the hill because that increases the probability of dying. That’s a very good idea—essential. The problem is that we also have to be able to adapt, and adapting requires you going over and seeing what’s on the other side of the hill. So in certain contexts, uncertainty is actually a very positive thing—we actively seek it out, in fact. That way of being is now called science.

  What do you mean by that?

  Science isn’t defined simply as a methodology—it’s a way of being. Science isn’t defined simply as a methodology—it’s a way of being. It celebrates uncertainty and is open to possibility. It’s inherently cooperative and intrinsically motivated. The reward for doing science is science itself. The reward for discovery is the process of discovery. But it also has an intention to it.

  Scientists not only delve into the unknown and reveal what is not yet known—they also question the things we do think we know and continually pressure-test them under different circumstances to see where our knowledge cracks. How can we apply this to the rest of society?

  We need to enable people to see differently. The first step is to acknowledge, accept, and embody the fact that everything you do has a bias: Everything you do is grounded in assumption not sometimes, but all the time. And a lot of your assumptions you inherited from your culture or even your evolutionary ancestors. If you don’t accept that, you’re never going to ask a question. And you’re going to get selected out.

  The second step is to know what those assumptions are and accept them. We have to reveal them to ourselves and to others, which is the power of groups. The power of diversity, exploration, and traveling is that it reveals your assumptions to yourself.

  Then the next step is to question those assumptions. That’s the hardest bit, because we hate to throw ourselves into uncertainty—because to not know was once literally to die. We have to put ourselves in environments that enable us and others to ask questions, that make you want to challenge what you think you knew already. You have to be able to celebrate doubt. But in a world that emphasizes competition and answers, often that is the scariest thing to do.

  I feel that’s pretty typical of Western school systems, too—all of those malleable kids’ brains being forced to memorize rote lessons.

  Yes, this is very different from the school environments we tend to put children in, which are all based on competition and maximizing efficiency, not asking questions. To ask a question is scary and potentially very dangerous: to challenge what you assumed to be true already—especially about yourself—and to question your own identity. That’s the ultimate uncertainty. And there needs to be a need for you to ask questions in the first place. That need can come from fear, but the more positive framework for it to come from is awe and wonder. “I wonder if…” is the most amazing start of a question.

  This is where our i,scientist program comes into play, which is a project where we work with young kids on the process of science itself. We do this by encouraging a sense of awe and wonder. Because if you don’t have a sense of that, you’re not going to ask questions.

  How will emerging technologies—like AI, VR, and AR—change human perception?

  They have the potential for tremendously positive impact, but that has to do with the technology. Most of our technology enables us to do what we can already do, faster, easier, and with less restriction; they can make our processes more efficient. Those are good technologies. They’re very useful, but they’re not great technologies. The great, transformative technologies are the ones that make the invisible visible: They enable us to see something, experience something, imagine something that we never knew existed before. Some of those examples are the telescope, the microscope, the fMRI—and even something as simple as the sail. The sail enabled us to see parts of the world and cultures that we never knew existed, and in doing so, it suddenly not only challenged our own assumptions but expanded our space of possibility. We always think of technologies as being digital, but there are some tremendous innovations that all revolve around traveling—both physically and metaphorically.

  Humans are currently obsessed with this idea of becoming “more human”; we’re trying to hack ourselves to push the limits of our natural human abilities. Sometimes we do that through technology and other times it’s through life hacks that try to make us quicker, smarter, more productive. In some ways I think that’s brilliant: that we’re taking advantage of the bodies and brains we’ve evolved to have. But in other ways I feel like its artificialness is actually taking us away from true humanness. Where do you sit on this?

  We’re trying to move faster, communicate faster, faster, faster, FASTER! That’s because we keep focusing on efficiency as the major driver: I wanna get more for less; I’m gonna out-compete someone else; I’m gonna get there more quickly—and I’m not gonna spend as much money getting there. It’s all about performance in the sense of efficiency. That’s true even within our schools: getting kids to focus on getting the answer—that there is an answer.

  The basis of creativity is humility and not knowing. The basis of creativity is humility and not knowing. Nothing interesting comes from knowing—it comes from not knowing. It doesn’t come from confidence—it comes from courage. Every successful company begins with creativity: a question and an idea. It then makes itself successful by taking that idea and making it efficient. Innovation is that balance between creativity and efficiency.

  So many people are afraid to admit to what they don’t know, though. And once they’ve formed an opinion, they’re often afraid to change it—if they’re even open to thinking they might be wrong in the first place.

  Isn’t that stupid? If you do a U-turn and change your mind, you’re seen as being weak. One of the reasons we do this is because we don’t want that uncertainty: We’d rather have the certainty of belief than the uncertainty you might change your mind. So when someone changes their mind, you’ve now created uncertainty, you’ve created doubt. We’re currently trying to artificially engineer a system that doesn’t change, and that’s because we’re so afraid of change itself.

  In the end, should we always be playful and creative, and stop trying to correctly categorize the world around us?

  No, not always. Wisdom is knowing where to be at the edge of chaos, metaphorically. It’s knowing when to be one versus the other—because if a bus is coming at you, you don’t want to be creative: You want to get out of the way as efficiently and fast as possible.

  So, what should we do, then?

  The beginning of question is “quest,” right? We can go on our own quest. We can push our own boundaries. We can challenge our own norms. We can all be explorers, because it’s all relative.

  Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

• The Guardian
  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/22/deviate-the-science-of-seeing-differently-by-beau-lotto-review
  Word count: 1031

  Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently by Beau Lotto review – why we need brain control

  A neuroscientist argues that all experience occurs in the brain – and that the brain is deluded

  Jonathan Rée

  Sat 22 Apr 2017 07.00 EDT
  Last modified on Wed 29 Nov 2017 04.41 EST
  Lotto thinks our perceptions terminate at the boundaries of your brain.

  Beau Lotto is a gung-ho neuroscientist. “[The] great minds of history,” he says, “had theories, but now neuroscience has an answer.” The latest research has, it seems, established that everything you experience “takes place in the brain” and that “you never, ever see reality!” (Lotto loves his italics and exclamation marks.) Your brain may be beautiful, but “what makes it beautiful is that it is delusional” and you should therefore get shot of your inhibitions and summon the courage to “deviate!”
  Sign up for the Bookmarks email
  Read more

  Perhaps we should back up a little. Early in the book, Lotto mentions a French scientist called Michel Chevreul who started working at the Gobelins textile factory in Paris in the 1820s. Chevreul had to deal with complaints about coloured yarns that seemed to fade after being woven into tapestries, and his patient chemical analyses did not get him anywhere. But then he shifted his attention from the science of dyestuffs to the psychology of perception, and he was on the way to a solution: colours, he discovered, change their appearance when looked at side by side.

  I needed respite from Lotto’s exclamation marks so I spent an afternoon in the British Library looking through a gorgeous old volume in which Chevreul expounded his “law of the simultaneous contrast of colours”. Chevreul began by showing how a black line has drastic effects on the appearance of adjacent colours, and how a red patch makes its surroundings look green. He then discussed the difference between colours in an object and colours in a painting, and offered suggestions about the design of picture frames and the use of colour in theatre; and he finished with wonderful planting plans for beds of multicoloured crocuses and dahlias. The book is itself an exuberant work of art, with tinted pages and fold-out arrays of coloured dots looking like prototypes of the spot paintings of Damien Hirst.

  I also went back to a book about perception that enjoyed a huge vogue in the 1970s. Eye and Brain by the late Richard Gregory comprises a full-colour collection of optical illusions together with a commentary on the physics and neurology of vision, providing a triumphant demonstration that, as Gregory put it, seeing an object “involves many sources of information beyond those meeting the eye”.

  When I got back to Lotto I was quite shocked. He says Chevreul “tripped up” because he had no idea “how the brain works”, while Gregory belonged to a benighted age when the brain was regarded as “a ready-made entity”, incapable of adaptation. But these are more enlightened days: we now know that the brain is susceptible to change (did anyone ever doubt it?) and that it exhibits a “neurological tendency toward delusion”. At this point Lotto surprised me by declaring his allegiance to the 18th-century Christian philosopher George Berkeley, who famously equated “being” with “perceiving or being perceived”. Berkeley was, in Lotto’s opinion, “a theoretical neuroscientist before the field even existed”, blessed with “ahead-of-his-time insights” to the effect that “we don’t have direct access to the world”. He realised, according to Lotto, that we live inside our perceptions rather like a person shut inside a caravan with tiny windows offering only a few partial glimpses of the world outside. But that gets Berkeley spectacularly wrong: his big idea was that the notion of material objects distinct from perception is not only unnecessary but self-contradictory, and he drew the conclusion that perception, far from confining us to a private inner world, places us in the midst of God’s bountiful creation. If you want to steer clear of theology, you might say Berkeley recognised that perception takes us out of ourselves into a world of shared experience.

  Asking questions and deviating have been the trigger for progress, from the US revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall

  Professor Lotto, however, thinks your perceptions terminate at the boundaries of your brain, and while he is sparing with neurological detail, he is liberal with moral advice. Once you know your brain is delusional, he says, you must start “actively living the knowing”. You will need to “choose your delusions”, thus taking back control of your brain. You will have to ask yourself the big question: “Why are things this way and not another way?” And then you must prepare to deviate! Asking questions and deviating have, according to Lotto, been the trigger for every single step of human progress, from the American and French revolutions to the fall of the Berlin Wall; and in the 21st century we need to question and deviate as never before.

  Let us question and deviate by all means. But once you start asking “Why?” you may well find yourself wondering why Lotto imagines that we need to take up neuroscience in order to do so: the American and French revolutionaries and the Berlin wall-demolishers seem to have managed quite well without it. You may also wonder why the question “Why?” is supposed to be allied to the politics of liberal progress: might it not lead to ignorant hate-filled exasperation instead? You might also want to ask why a 21st-century book about perception is printed in black and white and shades of grey without a dash of colour. As for deviation, my advice would be to deviate towards the works of Chevreul (you will find samples on the internet) and to Gregory’s Eye and Brain, which has never gone out of print.

  • Deviate by Beau Lotto (W&N, £20). To order a copy for £15, go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min. p&p of £1.99.

• New Scientist
  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431231-000-attempts-to-alter-the-way-we-perceive-the-world/
  Word count: 707

  Deviate attempts to alter the way we perceive the world

  Altering how and what our brains perceive is a tough challenge, argues a new book, especially because most of us take reality for granted
  orange room
  When it comes to colour, reality really is constructed in the mind

  Pascal Aimar/Tendance Floue

  By Anil Ananthaswamy

  “THE doubt-driven ride this book will take you on is going to physically change your brain,” claims Beau Lotto early in Deviate. He wants to change our brains by making us reassess the reality we perceive.

  The book draws on his research at University College London, where he studies perception, and his work at the Lab of Misfits at London’s Science Museum – an exhibition creating experiences designed to alter how and what our brains perceive.
  deviate

  To this end, Deviate plays with the book’s design: some words get larger fonts (making the page look like a word cloud), and occasionally pages are upside down, or columns of text run diagonally across. The intent is to shake up our very experience of reading.

  The idea that our perceptions don’t mirror objective, external reality is not new. People with neuropsychological conditions provide stark evidence that we can perceive things that really aren’t there. The question is whether everyday perception is also questionable.

  Deviate takes sides, aiming to convince that normal perception is also suspect. As Lotto says, “We’re all like Alice all the time… except that we didn’t have to drop through the rabbit hole. We’re already deep inside it.” And he tries myriad ways to show us that. There’s the delicious story of Goethe’s ill-advised odyssey to undermine Newton’s theory of light with his own theory of colour. Goethe got it wrong because “like most of us, he took for granted that he saw reality”.

  Then there’s Michel Eugène Chevreul, a French chemist who showed why the colours of the tapestries displayed in the Paris showrooms of the 1820s (“rich burgundies, grassy greens, sun-kissed golds”) looked so different in the homes of customers. The perception of a colour has to do with the colours surrounding it – reality is constructed in the mind.

  That’s the key idea: perception is the outcome of the brain trying to make predictions, based on experiences and assumptions that are either hardwired (over evolutionary time) or that accumulate during individual lifetimes. If we have to change ourselves, for whatever reason, then “the first challenge is to accept everything you do is a reflex grounded in your assumptions”, writes Lotto.

  He reveals how to see things differently, with some tantalising insights. For instance, if your perceptions are the result of what your brain has experienced and the meanings attributed to these experiences, one way to change your future perceptions is to use the power of thought and imagination to rewire those associated meanings.

  Unfortunately, the book rarely gets stuck in for long. So in the section on changing our past to influence our future, he writes: “Governments – especially totalitarian ones – and their spin doctors understand the power of re-meaning history”. But in two paragraphs, he has moved on to big data.

  “One way to change future perceptions is to rewire the meanings associated with past experiences”

  Deviate can wander into pop psychology, as when Lotto talks about how living purposeful, creative lives means having to embrace uncertainty. He even dispenses relationship advice: “Waking… with another needs to be like seeing a sunrise.”

  In the end, Deviate can’t quite make up its mind if it’s about the neuroscience of perception or helping us change our lives using neuroscience. The tension is best illustrated when Lotto discusses how hard it was to apply his neuroscientific knowledge to make sense of an illness causing him neurological problems: “You know too much and nothing.”

  Deviate: The science of seeing differently

  Beau Lotto

  Weidenfeld & Nicolson

  This article appeared in print under the headline “Seeing is not perceiving”

• Creativity Post
  http://www.creativitypost.com/science/deviate_the_science_of_seeing_differently_by_beau_lotto
  Word count: 674

  “DEVIATE: The Science of Seeing Differently” by Beau Lotto
  By The Creativity Post | Jun 29, 2017
  Share

  Synopsis

  Renowned neuroscientist Beau Lotto presents a groundbreaking and practical guide to understanding perception and transforming the way we see.

  In the wake of recent elections, Brexit and other unusual world events, many feel weighed down by uncertainty. It’s no surprise that the more interconnected our world becomes the more immediately we feel the consequences of current events. But, what you may not know is that while the brain hates uncertainty, it also holds the key to adapting to, and even thriving in, uncertain times. In his groundbreaking book DEVIATE: The Science of Seeing Differently (Hachette Books), world-renowned neuroscientist, entrepreneur, and two-time TED speaker Beau Lotto draws on over two decades of research to reveal startling truths about the brain and how it perceives the world. Along the way, Lotto brilliantly illustrates how we see the world, and then how we can see differently, ultimately unlocking our ability to create, innovate, and effect change.

  In DEVIATE, Beau answers the long-debated question: do humans see reality or not? Spoiler alert: we don't. In fact, our brains didn’t – couldn’t! – evolve to see the world accurately. What we see is subjective, not objective. This fundamental revelation shows that everything we know is filtered by each individual's past experiences. It’s the reason why “dressgate” confounded the world and broke the internet in 2015. How was it possible that half the population saw the dress as blue and black and the other half saw it as white and gold? The answer is that color is simply a perception made by the brain when light hits the retina at differing wavelengths. So, color – and the makeup of the dress itself – is not a reality but rather a perception and we see the dress differently than our neighbor because our brains interpret these wavelengths differently.

  But understanding the science is only the first step. DEVIATE provides the next step. Through case studies, history, cutting-edge science, entertaining illustrations and optical illusions, DEVIATE provides a clear and comprehensive explanation of the science behind our perceptions and shows how our reactions to that understanding can allow us to literally change our brains and improve how we function in every aspect of life.

  At work, at home, in love, while using technology, being out in nature, in groups, and in solitude – the power to unlocking creative potential lies in one’s fundamental understanding of perception. DEVIATE is the practical, enlightening, and groundbreaking guide that will not only provide an illuminating account of the neuroscience of thought, behavior, and creativity, it will ultimately motivate readers and thinkers everywhere to begin their own journey of self-discovery and reinvention.

  Check out Beau's talk "Why Creative People Are Actually Highly Logical" for BigThink

  About Beau Lotto: (@BeauLotto)

  Beau Lotto is a world-renowned neuroscientist who specializes in the biology and psychology of perception. Originally from Seattle, Washington, he has lived in the United Kingdom for over twenty years and currently resides in Oxford. He received his undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley, his PhD from the University of Edinburgh Medical School, and was a fellow at Duke University. He has been conducting and presenting research on human perception and behavior for more than twenty-five years, has published over sixty publications and two academic books. A Professor at the University of London (Goldsmiths) and Visiting Scholar at NYU, Beau is also Founder & CEO of an augmented reality startup, Founder and Director of the Lab of Misfits, which is a creative agency grounded in principles of perception. His interest in education, business, and the arts has led him into entrepreneurship and engaging the public with science. He passionately believes in the impact perception research can have on people from all walks of life. He lives in NYC and the United Kingdom.

  Tags: beau lotto, creativity research, deviate, neuroscience of creativity, perception

• Washington Post
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-our-grasp-of-reality-is-fragile/2017/06/09/a83f76e2-0a80-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.ae7b23245734
  Word count: 986

  Why our grasp of reality is fragile
  By Eliezer J. Sternberg June 9, 2017

  Eliezer J. Sternberg, M.D., is a neurologist at Yale-New Haven Hospital and the author of “NeuroLogic: The Brain’s Hidden Rationale Behind Our Irrational Behavior.”

  ‘Guys please help me — is this dress white and gold, or blue and black? Me and my friends can’t agree.” On Feb. 25, 2015, a photo posted on Tumblr of a party dress led to a social-media firestorm as thousands debated what color it was. Many saw it as blue and black, yet others swore it was white and gold, while still others saw the color scheme switch before their eyes. The phenomenon of “the Dress,” like other optical illusions, suggests that the human visual system can be tricked into misinterpreting reality. However, in his new book, “Deviate,” neuroscientist Beau Lotto suggests a more drastic interpretation: We never see reality.

  [The inside story of the ‘white dress, blue dress’ drama that divided a planet]

  Since all perception arises from neuronal processing in the brain, Lotto argues, we don’t experience reality directly, but rather the brain’s construal of reality. We experience an interpretation. It’s a thrilling and deeply philosophical point, and Lotto expresses it well. Many who write about the notion of reality and optical illusions would take this opportunity to sensationalize their work by claiming that, since we don’t truly perceive reality, reality does not exist. One certainly doesn’t imply the other, and to his credit, Lotto resists this temptation and instead makes a more measured case: “There is an objective ‘truth’ or reality, but our brains don’t give us access to it.” This may seem like a subtle distinction at first, but in the era of “alternative facts,” the premise that there is an objective reality, a concrete truth from which perceptions and perspectives arise, is foundational to science and makes for a powerful driving force in Lotto’s work.
  subscribe
  The story must be told.
  Your subscription supports journalism that matters.
  Try 1 month for $1
  "Deviate: The Science of Seeing Differently," by Beau Lotto (Hachette)

  Peppered with quirky (albeit occasionally distracting) illustrations that parallel the quirks of perception, “Deviate” is an entertaining read that raises fascinating questions about how we perceive the world. Aside from being an accomplished scientist, Lotto is a talented writer who uses illustrative examples and visual experiments to dazzle and to teach.

  But “Deviate” is not really about the science of perception. Rather, Lotto’s goal is to show how understanding the biases in our own perception, and intentionally trying to deviate from them, can help us “see differently.” Lotto argues that being aware of your assumptions and biases (basically, being self-aware) will “start changing not just your brain and your perceptions, but your whole way of being as a human.”

  Instead of using neuroscience to follow through on this premise, however, Lotto veers into well-worn self-help tips. He relies too often on platitudes such as “we ARE our assumptions” and such empty concepts as “the physics of No.” Lotto devotes 10 pages to the advice “JUST STOP,” by which he means we should actively suppress our unpleasant thoughts or urges. He goes as far as to make the medically unsound suggestion that people who suffer from panic attacks can and should simply “ignore them.”

  [Oddities, mysteries and logic within the brain]

  Short on concrete explanations and experimental results, most of the science in the book comes in the form of references to the brain’s obvious complexity (“the cells that make up your brain form 100 trillion connections”) or broad declarations of how the brain might work: “Your brain does not make big jumps.”

  For someone who is arguing that there is an objective truth we can strive to perceive despite our biases and assumptions, Lotto misses a chance to showcase our main instrument in the pursuit of that reality: science. Science is the ultimate, systematic search for truth through hypothesis and prediction, experimentation and observation, drawing conclusions and establishing fact. So why does Lotto, a renowned perceptual neuroscientist, bury the science under prepackaged, superficial aphorisms?

  Perhaps the reason has to do with one of Lotto’s own assumptions: that people find science boring. Lotto writes that when you hear the word “science,” “you’re likely to be thinking that science is about the sterility of lab coats and unimaginative facts.”

  It is precisely that kind of thinking that is so emblematic of the post-factual age we live in. Facts aren’t “imaginative.” They are dry and boring and factual. But as Lotto expresses so eloquently, since we cannot directly perceive reality, it’s on us to navigate the spaces between bias and assumption to come as close as possible to determining what is objective and true. If we neglect this challenge, the challenge posed by scientific inquiry, we are left to indulge only in that which confirms our preconceptions.

  While thousands of people debated online about the color of a dress, some wondered why anybody cared about something so seemingly banal. Lotto contends that the illusion inspired such interest because it defied viewers’ sense of reality, exposing the interpretive nature of perception. Did people really want to know the truth, or were they merely seeking confirmation of their own perspectives? Let’s hope it was the former, because if we acknowledge that we have a fragile grasp of the fabric of reality — that from the outset we merely hold on to the fringes — then it follows that if we cease in our pursuit of objective truth with the rigors of science, all that remains is illusion.
  Deviate
  The Science of Seeing Differently

  By Beau Lotto

  Hachette Books. 332 pp. $28

• Hindustan Times
  https://www.hindustantimes.com/fitness/book-review-an-introduction-to-the-world-the-mind-is-not-trained-to-see/story-cJBmSf6VxtGD1BNXvpHTeP.html
  Word count: 628

  Book review: An introduction to the world the mind is not trained to see
  Prehistoric Man saw only what he needed to see in order to survive, says Beau Lotto. Our challenges are new, and we need new ways of seeing.
  fitness Updated: Jul 20, 2017 11:51 IST
  Madhusree Ghosh
  Madhusree Ghosh
  Hindustan Times
  Beau Lotto’s book, Deviate, touches upon subjects such as the physiology of assumptions and the role of perception in innovation.
  Beau Lotto’s book, Deviate, touches upon subjects such as the physiology of assumptions and the role of perception in innovation.

  DEVIATE: SEEING REALITY DIFFERENTLY

  Author: Beau Lotto
  Publisher: Hachette
  Price: Rs 399 (Hardcover)

  Our brains are tricking us all the time, seeing only what we have been preconditioned to perceive and leaving out much of the world around us.

  That’s Beau Lotto’s take in his intriguing book on how the brain works, and why it leaves out what it leaves out.

  In Deviate: Seeing Reality differently, Lotto says his goal is to reveal the “hidden wonderland” that is the readers’ own perception and he does this through a combination of case studies and visual exercises.

  He starts with the example of ‘The Dress’ that broke the internet in 2014 as people around the world argued over whether it was blue-and-black or white-and-gold.

  Lotto then takes the readers back to 18th century France, when the French chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul first explored the principles of harmony and contrast via colour, studying why people see certain colours differently, especially in different lights. Essentially, he said, context is everything when it comes to colours — and who knows what else?

  The ten chapters then touch upon subjects such as the physiology of assumptions and the role of perception in innovation. Some parts are a bit repetitive, but along the way, Lotto touches upon how our perception is shaped by our history, culture, evolving societies and the eternal tug of war between society and individual, conformity and deviation.

  Millions of years ago, man learnt to see only what he needed to see in order to survive, Lotto says. Since our past determines the physical makeup of our brain, it also determines how we think and behave.
  Read more

  Book review: Silicon Valley culture may be changing how your brain works
  Book review: On the Keto diet? Here are some recipes with a desi twist

  “Our brain is a physical embodiment of our ancestor’s perceptual reflexes shaped through the process of natural selection, combined with our own reflexes as well as those of the culture in which we are embedded,” Lotto writes.

  It is vital, he suggests, to begin to engage with the world as it is now.

  Whether it’s climate change or renewable energy, refugees or terror, the solutions that will work have not been arrived at yet. Quite simply, it’s a dangerous time to think inside the box as a species.

  And in order to do this, we must begin by changing our perception of uncertainty. Where we had once programmed ourselves to move away from uncertainty, and to suspect it, we must now embrace and engage with it.

  We must begin to celebrate doubt and encourage ‘deviation’; use science to impartially observe our own perception, and in doing so develop the habit of thoughtful deviation.

  We must start, he suggests, by listening — that key indication that you are opening your mind to other points of view. Because there is more at stake here than the colour of a dress.

Word Count