Re: The Lunar Paradox

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:28:18 GMT, "Craig Franck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>"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'm not sure this is what I would consider an exhaustive analytical
rationale.
>
>> 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. :~)

No, but I'm not proud of it.
>
>> 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."

Well I wouldn't kick her out of bed on a cold morning.
>
>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.
>
I agree with the first part of what you say. However I don't think
vision is anything like half the problem in conceptual terms. It may
be in terms of actual cerebreal function but solving vision doesn't
begin to address the mind in comparable terms.


Regards - Lester