Re: Creativity

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lester Zick) writes:

>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.

Your terminology is strange.  It is normal to call this a perceptual
illusion.

>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.

Again, you seem to be misusing terminology.  With standard usage,
this has a perceptual basis.  I would not say it has a "cognitive
basis", except in so far as perception is part of cognition.

I'm also not sure how you are using "objective condition" here.
Since the effect is psychological, it would not normally be
considered objective.

>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.

It would seem more likely that behaviorists consider explaining the
illusion, or discussing what people see or perceive to be off limits,
but that their verbal behavior in these circumstances can very much
be part of what behaviorism investigates.

>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).

There is your strange usage again.

It seems to me that to say "the illusion is cognitive rather than
perceptual" would be to say that the illusion depends on how you are
thinking about it.  However, since the illusion is observed before
you start thinking about it, then "perceptual illusion" would appear
to be the better term.