Re: The Lunar Paradox

"Lester Zick" wrote

> "Craig Franck" in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

> >I think the key to understanding this illusion is to consider that the
> >rendering of your visual field is about as computationally intense as
> >a 3D video game. When viewed as a guided hallucination, the fact
> >that we see things as close to how they are is pretty astounding,
> >but then the mapping function of world to representation has been
> >under strong environmental pressures for quite some time.
> >
> I'm not sure here what you mean by the phrase strong environmental
> pressures.

Natural selection. The problem with radical skepticism with
regards to our senses is nature abhors philosophical problems:
If we couldn't trust our senses to reveal reality, we wouldn't be
here. If there wasn't some reality external to ourselves before
we got here, we never would have got here.

> I don't doubt that the process is pretty astounding. Just
> take a couple of drinks and see what the result is on vision.

You seem to have a low tolerance for alcohol. :~)

> But I
> think as I remarked to Michael that I prefer to consign the problem to
> the X files for the time being.

I only consign things to the X-Files if there's a chance I'll get
to meet Gillian Anderson. Otherwise, to quote Voltaire: "I have
always confined myself to doing my little best to make men less
foolish and more honorable."

Part of the problem with work on consciousness in the past
is everyone had been far too willing to look on it as something
beyond explanation or reason. Figuring out how vision works
solves 50% of the problem of conscious experience, especially
if its subjectivity comes from an integration of the senses with
some other representation.

-- 
Craig Franck
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cortland, NY