Re: Creativity

LZ: And Glen's assertion simply denies the effect without an explanation.
So what is there for psychological theories to explain?

GS: What are you talking about? I don't deny that the Moon Illusion exists,
I deny that it can be explained in terms of optics. The Moon Illusion is a
psychological phenomenon. Unlike mainstream psychologists, however, I am not
interested in metaphorical explanations in terms of the brain or alleged
mind making inferences about "what is out there." I am interested in the
sorts of histories that people and animals must have in order to experience
the illusion. Most people interested in this illusion already know that it
depends on "depth cues" (i.e., stimuli that vary with distance from the
observer), and they hint that it is our history of interacting with the
world that is responsible.

"Lester Zick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:26 -0800, Jim Balter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:54:29 -0800, Jim Balter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> >> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>
> >> And you know this how? I checked out the reference you gave and it
> >> turned out to be nothing more than a google search on the subject.
>
> >
> >"nothing more than"??
>
> I thought you had definitive evidence for the effect not just a
> variety of hypothetical explanations for an effect Glen denies.
> >
> > > The
> >> first article up made it clear that it was the authoritative solution
> >> on the subject and that all the others were wrong. Duh?
> >
> >"Duh?" Is right; the contrast is among psychological theories;
> >none of them refer to "atmospheric lensing".
>
> And Glen's assertion simply denies the effect without an explanation.
> So what is there for psychological theories to explain?
> >
> >> Apparently the
> >> paradox is a little more problematic than you seem to believe.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >> I'd be
> >> a little more circumspect with claims to omniscience.
> >
> >I made no such claim.
> >
> >> People might
> >> begin to think you're a Democrat.
> >
> >People might begin to think you're an idiot.
>
> Which I freely admit for conversing with you. Anyone with an inability
> to comprehend the meaning of is and is not is either a Democrat or
> currently repeating sixth grade. Same difference I guess. AMF.
>
>
>
> Regards - Lester
>