Re: The Lunar Paradox

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:00:35 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:59:54 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:
>
>>According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
>>moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
>>from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims
>>that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
>>and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
>>evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
>>photographs do not show it.
>>
>>The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
>>of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
>>the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
>>not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.
>
>No, Glen's arguments are based on the fact that the mirage can be
>photographed, and the moonrise illusion cannot.  The mirage is objectively
>there - you are looking at a real image when you see it. The larger moon at
>moonrise is not objectively there - you are exaggerating its size when you
>see it.

Well at least this is a reasonable approach to the problem. It might
be an exaggerated interpretive effect.
>
>This subjective exaggeration of size is not limited to the apparent size of
>the moon at moon rise. The amateur photographer suffers from it too - how
>many pictures "didn't come out right" because the snapshooter saw Aunt Maude
>as much bigger than she really was in the picture field? Etc.
>
You know the only problem I find with this explanation is that I don't
seem to be able to compensate for the interpretive visual effect. It
doesn't matter how many times I look at it or under what conditions it
still comes out the same way.


Regards - Lester