Authors
Chaz Firestone
Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
What is the relationship between complexity in the world and complexity in the mind? Intuitively, increasingly complex objects and events should give rise to increasingly complex mental representations (or perhaps a plateau in complexity after a certain point). However, a counterintuitive possibility with roots in information theory is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the “objective” complexity of some stimulus and the complexity of its mental representation, because excessively complex patterns might be characterized by surprisingly short computational descriptions (e.g., if they are represented as having been generated “randomly”). Here, we demonstrate that this is the case, using a novel approach that takes the notion of “description” literally. Subjects saw static and dynamic visual stimuli whose objective complexity could be carefully manipulated, and they described these stimuli in their own words by giving freeform spoken descriptions of them. Across three experiments totaling over 10,000 speech clips, spoken descriptions of shapes (Experiment 1), dot-arrays (Experiment 2), and dynamic motion-paths (Experiment 3) revealed a striking quadratic relationship between the raw complexity of these stimuli and the length of their spoken descriptions. In other words, the simplest and most complex stimuli received the shortest descriptions, while those stimuli with a “medium” degree of complexity received the longest descriptions. Follow-up analyses explored the particular words used by subjects, allowing us to further explore how such stimuli were represented. We suggest that the mind engages in a kind of lossy compression for overly complex stimuli, and we discuss the utility of such freeform responses for exploring foundational questions about mental representation.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Language and Mind.Noam Chomsky - 1968 - Cambridge University Press.
Curious Objects: How Visual Complexity Guides Attention and Engagement.Zekun Sun & Chaz Firestone - 2021 - Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 45 (4):e12933.
A Mathematical Theory of Communication.Claude E. Shannon - 1948 - Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Curious Objects: How Visual Complexity Guides Attention and Engagement.Zekun Sun & Chaz Firestone - 2021 - Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 45 (4):e12933.
Abstract Complexity Definition.Mariusz Stanowski - 2011 - Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education (2).
Kolmogorov Complexity and Noncomputability.George Davie - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (4):574-581.
You Never Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression: The Effect of Visual Complexity on Intention to Use Websites.Rik Crutzen, Linda deKruif & Nanne K. deVries - 2012 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 13 (3):469-477.
Kolmogorov Complexity and Noncomputability.George Davie - 2002 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 48 (5):574-580.
The Genesis of Complexity.Ralph H. Abraham - 2011 - World Futures 67 (4-5):380 - 394.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-07-30

Total views
95 ( #113,423 of 2,449,040 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
95 ( #6,154 of 2,449,040 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes