Re: Creativity

The term "optical illusion," unfortunately, was once used to refer to
perceptual illusions.

"Neil W Rickert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lester Zick) writes:
> >On 29 Nov 2003 19:21:56 GMT, Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> >comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>[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.
>
> >You know I've been looking at replies and maybe I've just been using
> >these terms too long to judge how people respond to what I'm trying to
> >suggest. Let me see if I can clarify the critieria I use for the
> >distinction I'm trying to draw.
>
> >I think most people consider this a perceptual illusion because it
> >deals with visual referrents. Instead I'm trying to highlight where
> >the illusion occurs. If we use photographic tests as criteria the
> >illusion we're dealing with here does not originate in perceptual
> >organs. In other words it just doesn't exist in perceptual terms
> >because it cannot be seen.
>
> Photography is not a perceptual system.  It is an optical system.
>
> The eyes are not a perceptual organ.  They are a sensory organ.
> The brain could perhaps be considered a perceptual organ.
>
> >An illusion like seeing water in the desert is perceptual in nature
> >because it can be photographed.
>
> That should make it optical in nature.  Why not call it an
> optical illusion?
>
> >                                In this regard it is really seen and
> >whatever illusion exists simply represents a misinterpretation of what
> >is actually seen. This kind of illusion I refer to as perceptual
> >because the perceptual referrents are really out there and are
> >confirmed experimentally.
>
> >Now in the case of what I call a cognitive illusion related to the
> >senses the illusion really isn't seen despite its visual
> >representation. The objects seen are seen but there is some distortion
> >of the visual field that leads to a misconstruction of what is seen.
> >And without the ability to be seen - as confirmed in photographs - I
> >consider that it cannot have been seen as the mind interprets it and
> >cannot represent a visual perceptual illusion to this extent. There
> >has to be some cognitive misconstruction.
>
> You are making a case why this case should not be called an
> optical illusion.  But the term "perception" normally refers to
> something that goes well beyond optics or sensory detection.
>
> In one theory of perception (the sense data theory), the sensory
> organs are said to deliver sense data.  Then perceptual systems
> analyze these data to deliver perceptions.  For vision, the sense
> data might include patches of color, while the perceptual output
> might include cats, people, tables and other objects.
>
> I don't personally agree with sense data theories of perception.  But
> I mention it to indicate the ways that "perception" is used.
>
> >Perhaps we should characterize the first form of illusion a perceptual
> >misinterpretation and the second a cognitive misconstruction. I don't
> >really know and don't really understand how the miscontruction occurs.
> >However if we rely on photographic criteria there is no doubt that the
> >illusion is not present in the perceptual image itself but only occurs
> >subsequently.
>
> Photographic systems do not produce perceptual images.  They produce
> optical images.
>
> I think you would be less confusing if your distinction were between
> optical illusions and perceptual illusions, instead of calling them
> respectively perceptual illusions and cognitive illusions.
>
>  --------------
>
> >Here again I may have misjudged the interpretation of terms I use
> >routinely. Properties are objective simply in result of being known
> >and identifiable. They can be anywhere - inside the mind outside
> >wherever the properties themselves indicate through perspective. The
> >manipulation of properties in taking differences is a subjective
> >process because it represents a material manipulation, that is, a
> >manipulation done in material terms that results in differences
> >between material circumstances. But the result of that difference is a
> >differential property having objective significance.
>
> How does that apply?  What properties are you referring to here?
> The actual size of the moon is a property.  The angle subtended by
> the light from the moon is a property.  Whether it looks big or
> small is an appearance, rather than a property.
>
> I would use "objective" for the properties, but not for the
> appearances.
>
> >I hope this clarifies how I am using these terms and why.
>
> I hope I have clarified what is more typical usage, and why.
>