I find it difficult to know what to make of the concrete statements here, because they seem so obviously false.
You’ve no doubt experienced this first hand if you’ve ever seen an optical illusion
It is by our senses that we know that these things are optical illusions.
you can’t directly look into the center of your own pupil
You can do just that in a mirror. BTW, the blind spot is not in the middle of the visual field. but off to the side. It is easy to see it, though, by closing one eye and attending to where the blind spot in the other eye is. When the optician shines an ophthalmoscope into my eye, I can see the blood vessels in my own retina.
we literally don’t and can’t know about the things our senses my obscure from us.
Our senses fail to show us X-rays, atoms, the curvature of space-time, and anything happening on the other side of the world. but we can very easily know about these things, by clever use of our senses and tools, tools that were created with the aid of the senses.
So, all of the above quotes appear to be obviously, trivially false. Is there some other interpretation, or are they mere deepities?
the postrationalist project sees [the unquestioned core] as a free variable we must learn to work with in different contexts.
I remain sceptical about this unquestionable core. The argument for its existence looks isomorphic to the proof of God as first cause, first knowledge, and first good. But I’ll leave that aside. What constitutes working with it?
So, all of the above quotes appear to be obviously, trivially false. Is there some other interpretation, or are they mere deepities?
My point is that our naive use of our senses often deceive us. This is not meant as a line of evidence in support of my position, but an evocative experience you’ve probably had that is along the same lines as the thing I’m gesturing at. It is of course different in that we know those things are illusions because it turns out we have more information than we initially think we do, so I am more interested here in the experience of finding that you ask your senses for information about the world and get back what turns out to be misinformation so you have something concrete the grasp onto as a referent for the kind of thing I’m pointing at when I make the more general point about the problem of perception.
Thank you for correcting me on the blind spot thing.
I remain sceptical about this unquestionable core. The argument for its existence looks isomorphic to the proof of God as first cause, first knowledge, and first good. But I’ll leave that aside. What constitutes working with it?
It is related, but only because it’s the existence of the unexaminable core that creates the free variable that allows us to pick the leap of faith we want to take, be it to God or something else. In fact this is what I would accuse most rationalists of: taking a leap of faith to positivism (that we can establish the truth value of every assertion, or more properly because rationalists are also Bayesians the likelihood of the truth of every assertion), even if it’s done out of pragmatism. Working with the unexaminable means remaining deeply skeptical that we know anything or even can know anything and considering the possibility that we are deeply deluded. Most of the time this doubt ends up working out in favor of rationality, but sometimes it seems to not, or at least you’re less certain that it does. This invites us to reconsider our most fundamental assumptions about the world and how we know it and be less sure that things are as they seem.
It is by our senses that we know that these things are optical illusions.
By only looking through the visual sense we are able to see things that are. What comes as confusing and “illusion” like is when we use a sense of thoughts/conceptualisation to interpret the visual information.
The optics in that article are completely wrong. To a first approximation, a mirror of a given size shows the same amount of your face independently of how far or near you hold it. It does not blur anything when held very near; it is your eyes that are unable to focus that near. The rest is woo.
I have no idea how this happened. We appear to have different experiences.
the same amount of your face independently of how far or near you hold it.
I’d make one clarification to say, the mirror shows a reflection. The mirror also changes apparent size depending on the distance from the eyes. Now eyeballs obviously don’t bend physics to produce experience which is why I say apparent size. I suppose I could say visual size instead..
It’s a feature of mirrors I am familiar with already. But just to please you, I got out a 2-inch-wide circular mirror and did the experiment, and it is as I said and knew it would be.
Exercise: How large was the circular area of my face that I saw in it?
You really did me a confusing moment. I double checked for myself and then asked someone else too after this response.
I don’t know how it’s possible to get your results. The science of the inverse square law alone should anticipate experience.
If we live in universes with different laws of physics, that’s fine. Carry on!
In response to the question: that
A. depends on how far away the mirror is.
B. And what scale you use to measure it.
C. What the frame of reference is for a measurement.
D. If you are measuring your “face” or the reflection.
I don’t know how it’s possible to get your results. The science of the inverse square law alone should anticipate experience.
This has nothing to do with the inverse square law, which relates the intensity of light to distance from the source. It’s geometrical optics: the paths the light takes.
I find it difficult to know what to make of the concrete statements here, because they seem so obviously false.
It is by our senses that we know that these things are optical illusions.
You can do just that in a mirror. BTW, the blind spot is not in the middle of the visual field. but off to the side. It is easy to see it, though, by closing one eye and attending to where the blind spot in the other eye is. When the optician shines an ophthalmoscope into my eye, I can see the blood vessels in my own retina.
Our senses fail to show us X-rays, atoms, the curvature of space-time, and anything happening on the other side of the world. but we can very easily know about these things, by clever use of our senses and tools, tools that were created with the aid of the senses.
So, all of the above quotes appear to be obviously, trivially false. Is there some other interpretation, or are they mere deepities?
I remain sceptical about this unquestionable core. The argument for its existence looks isomorphic to the proof of God as first cause, first knowledge, and first good. But I’ll leave that aside. What constitutes working with it?
My point is that our naive use of our senses often deceive us. This is not meant as a line of evidence in support of my position, but an evocative experience you’ve probably had that is along the same lines as the thing I’m gesturing at. It is of course different in that we know those things are illusions because it turns out we have more information than we initially think we do, so I am more interested here in the experience of finding that you ask your senses for information about the world and get back what turns out to be misinformation so you have something concrete the grasp onto as a referent for the kind of thing I’m pointing at when I make the more general point about the problem of perception.
Thank you for correcting me on the blind spot thing.
It is related, but only because it’s the existence of the unexaminable core that creates the free variable that allows us to pick the leap of faith we want to take, be it to God or something else. In fact this is what I would accuse most rationalists of: taking a leap of faith to positivism (that we can establish the truth value of every assertion, or more properly because rationalists are also Bayesians the likelihood of the truth of every assertion), even if it’s done out of pragmatism. Working with the unexaminable means remaining deeply skeptical that we know anything or even can know anything and considering the possibility that we are deeply deluded. Most of the time this doubt ends up working out in favor of rationality, but sometimes it seems to not, or at least you’re less certain that it does. This invites us to reconsider our most fundamental assumptions about the world and how we know it and be less sure that things are as they seem.
No that would be a reflection.
http://www.headless.org/experiments/the-mirror.htm
By only looking through the visual sense we are able to see things that are. What comes as confusing and “illusion” like is when we use a sense of thoughts/conceptualisation to interpret the visual information.
The optics in that article are completely wrong. To a first approximation, a mirror of a given size shows the same amount of your face independently of how far or near you hold it. It does not blur anything when held very near; it is your eyes that are unable to focus that near. The rest is woo.
Did you do the experiment?
I just tried it, and Richard Kennaway is right.
I have no idea how this happened. We appear to have different experiences.
I’d make one clarification to say, the mirror shows a reflection. The mirror also changes apparent size depending on the distance from the eyes. Now eyeballs obviously don’t bend physics to produce experience which is why I say apparent size. I suppose I could say visual size instead..
It’s a feature of mirrors I am familiar with already. But just to please you, I got out a 2-inch-wide circular mirror and did the experiment, and it is as I said and knew it would be.
Exercise: How large was the circular area of my face that I saw in it?
You really did me a confusing moment. I double checked for myself and then asked someone else too after this response.
I don’t know how it’s possible to get your results. The science of the inverse square law alone should anticipate experience.
If we live in universes with different laws of physics, that’s fine. Carry on!
In response to the question: that A. depends on how far away the mirror is. B. And what scale you use to measure it. C. What the frame of reference is for a measurement. D. If you are measuring your “face” or the reflection.
This has nothing to do with the inverse square law, which relates the intensity of light to distance from the source. It’s geometrical optics: the paths the light takes.
How big was your mirror, and how much of your face did you see in it?