Re: Creativity

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:37:49 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>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.
>
Based on what I've seen so far in various posts we can conclude
certain things about the lunar paradox. Many testify to the existence
of a lunar horizonal size illusion and have over many centuries. Yet
the illusion cannot be photographed. Now I also maintain that there
has to be some atmospheric lensing effect affecting the apparent lunar
horizonal size because stars also appear to rise sooner and set later
than canonical expectations due to atmospheric refraction . However
let's leave this aside.

Now in my original post I describe the illusion as real and said that
Glen denied the reality of the illusion. This was incorrect. (See,
David, this is how an admission of error is done.) As Wolf correctly
pointed out to me I should have used the term perceptual illusion in
the sense of having perceptual antecedents subject to photographic
validation. When in fact taken in the terms indicated above the
illusion is not perceptual at all but an objective cognitive illusion
created by circumstantial cognitive conditions.

But the curious thing about all this is that here we have an objective
condition reported throughout centuries yet a condition that only
exists within the brain/mind complex having no direct perceptual
basis. So the question then becomes if such an illusion has no direct
perceptual basis what basis does it have? My answer of course would be
that it has to have some cognitive basis not involving perception
directly.

Glen obviously demurs. But I would like then to ask if the illusion is
indeed triggered by depth cues as Glen suggests what kind of
triggering is involved. Glen prefers to investigate the histories of
those who see the illusion - which is completely consistent with the
behaviorist mantra describe previously in a collateral thread but
which can only yield particular truth relating to the circumstantial
aspects of a variety of individuals but having no general universal
applicability of scientific necessity.

In other words Glen claims the circumstantial histories of reporting
individuals would explain the illusion whereas I claim it would do
nothing of the kind in universal scientific terms because the only
thing capable of doing that is the mechanical explanation for the
triggering of depth cues in cognitive terms.

Would the mechanical explanation for the triggering be reflected in
the histories of reporting individuals? Undoubtedly. Somewhere. The
only question would be where? And that I contend cannot be established
without reference to the actual mechanics for the triggering because
that is what describes the thing we would be looking for in historical
terms and not merely circumstantial similarities.

Obviously the illusion is cognitive rather than perceptual in origin
and to the extent it is an illusion reflects a cognitive manifestation
of differential mechanics (which of course is just my explanation for
cognition in general mechanical terms).


Regards - Lester