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.
>
LZ: 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.

GS: I didn't know that "canonical expectations" rise.

LZ: 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.

GS: I don't understand why you cannot write coherently. What is a
"perceptual antecedent?" What is meant by "objective cognitive illusion
created by circumstantial cognitive conditions?"

LZ: 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.

GS: Most psychologists would say that the illusion is "perceptual." Thus,
you are using the term "perceptual" in a way that view would understand. It
renders your "position" incomprehensible. And, also, you are using the term
"objective" in a totally idiosyncratic way. This also renders your
"position" incomprehensible.

LZ: So the question then becomes if such an illusion has no direct
perceptual basis[...]

GS: Even mainstream psychologists do not talk about "perception" in the
fashion that you are. When we present a circle with a break in it
tachistoscopically, an observer is likely to report that he or she saw an
unbroken circle - and this would be viewed as an issue concerning
"perception."

LZ: [...]what basis does it have? My answer of course would be
that it has to have some cognitive basis not involving perception
directly.

GS: But this is an incomprehensible statement, as is virtually all of what
you post.

LZ: 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.

GS: What kinds of "triggering" are there?

LZ: Glen prefers to investigate the histories of
those who see the illusion[...]

GS: No, I would prefer to directly impose histories and, thus, produce
animals that do or do not "see the illusion."

LZ:[...]- 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.

GS: No finding is "by necessity" applicable to other circumstances. You
simply do not have a clue as to how experimental science operates. If I
figure out what sorts of histories are necessary to produce pigeons that don
't see the illusion and pigeons that do, and then I show that the same
effects can be produced in monkeys (and any pigeon I use, for that matter),
it lends credence to the generality of what is reported. It doesn't mean
that I can produce the effect in any species, but it suggests that I might
be able to.

LZ: In other words Glen claims the circumstantial histories of
reportingindividuals would explain the illusion[...]

GS: No. I am claiming that if I experimentally demonstrate control over the
phenomenon, then explanation, at least at the behavioral level, has been
achieved.

LZ: [...]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.

GS: But how would you demonstrate "explanation?" If you produced the
phenomenon, it would be in particular circumstances. How would you know that
you could produce it in other circumstances - like with subjects other than
the ones you just used? Or other species?

LZ: 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.

GS: What matters a great deal in science is making something happen
consistently. I, too, would like an explanation of behavior in
neurobiological terms, but neurobiology is nowhere near this.

LZ: Obviously the illusion is cognitive rather than perceptual in
origin[...]

GS: Most mainstream psychologists would say that perception is a kind of
cognition.

LZ: [...] 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).

GS: You spew gibberish, and that is all.

"Lester Zick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message