Certain knowledge

[anthony]

Vision is not accurate, which is why we can enjoy movies and T.V. A motion picture is a sequence of still frames. Do we see them as such. WE DO NOT! Some accuracy that is. Ba'al Chatzaf

Can you see the bullet whizzing past you? You do not. According to your standard,

this is failure of vision.

I seem to remember the lag time between the image on the retina and conscious response

from the brain's optical centre is about 1/60 th second. That explains the over-laying of still-images we see in a movie, filmed at 24 fps.

Nobody claims vision is 'perfect' - seeing UV and IF wavelengths, or stopping bullets. Without inherent defects, it is accurate, however.

[BaalChatzaf]

I seem to remember the lag time between the image on the retina and conscious response

from the brain's optical centre is about 1/60 th second. That explains the over-laying of still-images we see in a movie, filmed at 24 fps.

Nobody claims vision is 'perfect' - seeing UV and IF wavelengths, or stopping bullets. Without inherent defects, it is accurate, however.

Behold! We see motion where there is no motion and we fail to see motion where there is motion. Some accuracy of perception that is. In short, our visual senses do not always tell us what is and what is not. It is not a failure of the mind (which is to say the brain). Our sense simply are not in perfect correspondence with the world. But they work well enough for us to survive.

Thank you for helping me state my case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I seem to remember the lag time between the image on the retina and conscious response from the brain's optical centre is about 1/60 th second. That explains the over-laying of still-images we see in a movie, filmed at 24 fps. Nobody claims vision is 'perfect' - seeing UV and IF wavelengths, or stopping bullets. Without inherent defects, it is accurate, however.

Behold! We see motion where there is no motion and we fail to see motion where there is motion. Some accuracy of perception that is. In short, our visual senses do not always tell us what is and what is not. It is not a failure of the mind (which is to say the brain). Our sense simply are not in perfect correspondence with the world. But they work well enough for us to survive. Thank you for helping me state my case. Ba'al Chatzaf

Hah! Nice try.

I doubt that. Seeing as your case is very skeptical. Do you not draw a distinction between the "perfect", and the "accurate"?

Not being able to see everything you believe we should (eg, X -Ray vision, seeing through walls - with the exact same resolution of an eagle's eye, - or some Superman ideal) is by your explanation "inaccurate"?

This is the same as a person saying, because man is not omniscient, he cannot know anything.

"Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility."

[AR]

The same goes for vision.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility."

[AR]

The same goes for vision.

Of course not. One does not have to know everything to know something.

And by the way, we do have X-ray vision. Go to any hospital. They have machines which shoot high energy photons through bone and tissue take photos or project on a flourescent screen. Superman ™ could not do better.

Our inability to see through solids under ordinary circumstances is not a defect of the eye. One cannot see what is not received. If a photon cannot make it through a solid (or other dense body) to get to the eye, that is not a failure of the eye. What does not shine or reflect is not seen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

"Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility." [AR] The same goes for vision.

Of course not. One does not have to know everything to know something.

One cannot see what is not received. If a photon cannot make it through a solid (or other dense body) to get to the eye, that is not a failure of the eye. What does not shine or reflect is not seen. Ba'al Chatzaf

True, about X-rays, and light.

So we come back to our inability (that perturbs you) to see Ultra Violet and Infra Red - and bullets and movie frames.

How's this variation:

Fallibility does not make vision imperfect; Vision is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

or, on your own words:

"Of course not. One does not have to see everything, to see something."

??

[BaalChatzaf]

"Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility." [AR] The same goes for vision.

Of course not. One does not have to know everything to know something.

One cannot see what is not received. If a photon cannot make it through a solid (or other dense body) to get to the eye, that is not a failure of the eye. What does not shine or reflect is not seen. Ba'al Chatzaf

True, about X-rays, and light.

So we come back to our inability (that perturbs you) to see Ultra Violet and Infra Red - and bullets and movie frames.

How's this variation:

Fallibility does not make vision imperfect; Vision is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

or, on your own words:

"Of course not. One does not have to see everything, to see something."

??

I am making a very simple point. Our senses are NOT infallible. They have limitations and deficiencies and what is more important, they can be spoofed. That is what camouflage and leger de main is all about, to say nothing of optical illusions which are contrived based on what we know about how visual data is processed in the visual cortex. The Objectivist claim that the senses are infallible is bogus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

But Ba'al already said that seeing still frames in rapid succession creates the illusion of motion. So it is innacuracy he is arguing for...

But I still don't see how you can blame the eyes for our brain's innability to freeze time.

Everyone's stuck on vision, but, Ba'al, could you argue that any of our other senses are deceptive in and of themselves?

[BaalChatzaf]

Everyone's stuck on vision, but, Ba'al, could you argue that any of our other senses are deceptive in and of themselves?

What does that mean? Can or do the senses sometimes present a perception that does not correspond to the external reality? Yes they can and yes they do (sometimes). There are no senses in and of themselves. Our sense organs are closely interfaced or connected to our brains and the perception derived from sensation is necessarily a function of brain processing. So there is no such thing as sense in and of itself. Sensing and perceiving are joined in complicated ways.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

But if I cover my eyes, my visual cortex hasn't been put out of comission, just my vision has... right?

[BaalChatzaf]

But if I cover my eyes, my visual cortex hasn't been put out of comission, just my vision has... right?

You have blocked the light. Your eyes work just fine. And the system is intact. A dysfunction means when stuff goes into the system, the resulting effects are incorrect. Like when your working eyes look through the peephole into the Ames Room and you see Big People become Small People right before your infallible eyes.

Here is the hard fact: The visual system can be spoofed. That is just the way it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Can our hearing be spoofed? Can our sense of smell or taste?

You say there are no senses in and of themselves, so if you mishear someone, it is your sense of hearing that has failed rather than your brain's treatment of the sensory information?

I think this whole disagreement is based on a difference in usage of the label "senses".

[anthony]

But Ba'al already said that seeing still frames in rapid succession creates the illusion of motion. So it is innacuracy he is arguing for...

But I still don't see how you can blame the eyes for our brain's innability to freeze time.

The principle by which we see movies is one and the same by which we do not see

a speeding bullet. To 'freeze' motion, would require eye and optical centre to respond

in micro-seconds, if not pico-seconds for the bullet. So, no, I think you are wrong.

I am arguing for accuracy, while Ba'al is arguing for some undefined "perfection" of perception.

"Perfect vision", by his argument, should have adapted to phenomena that are man-made, or that are able to 'do' everything in nature.

But we know that optical illusions are either designed by man to fool the brain within a limited time and position - or when they exist in nature ('bent' stick in water, haze creating mirages), actually exist, optically. To a camera, or to the eye, the same thing.

Objectivism claims the senses are accurate and faithful - not "perfect". Otherwise, why should we not see a sparrow on a distant mountain-top? hear a whisper 100metres away? or

automatically 'unbend' the stick? - to be absurd, and to make a straw-man of Ba'al's position, which I'm not trying to do.

This is a philosophical debate, not only an empirical/biological one: perception is the foundation of conceptualization.

As such it is crucial to Objectivism.

[BaalChatzaf]

I am arguing for accuracy, while Ba'al is arguing for some undefined "perfection" of perception.

I am doing no such thing. I point out there are thing Out There which we cannot perceive with out unaided senses and I point out our senses are quite deceivable even in the range of phenomena we can sense. Our senses our good enough for our survival. Good enough works for me. Infallible, does not.

What will it take to convince you that our senses our not infallible?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Objectivism claims the senses are accurate and faithful - not "perfect".

Then, three different set of eyes, with common 'malfunctions' can transfer three completely different and flawed datasets, BEFORE brain processing, yet all three are "accurate and faithful".

There are no apparent limits to this 'flawedness', yet the data is somehow "accurate and faithful"? Again, this is before processing.

The Objectivist claims are false.

Bob

[anthony]

I am arguing for accuracy, while Ba'al is arguing for some undefined "perfection" of perception.

I am doing no such thing. I point out there are thing Out There which we cannot perceive with out unaided senses and I point out our senses are quite deceivable even in the range of phenomena we can sense. Our senses our good enough for our survival. Good enough works for me. Infallible, does not. What will it take to convince you that our senses our not infallible? Ba'al Chatzaf

Where did you hear "infallible", regarding perceptions? Not from me.

Anyway, "quite deceivable" is unproven. Your optical illusions - in nature - are not illusions, but optically real.

Those designed by man - are exactly that: designed to deceive for a second, with no equivalent in nature.

Your evidence doesn't convince.

"Good enough for our survival", is not good enough. .

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions?

Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

"The arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of 'the stolen concept.'"[AR]

[bmacwilliam]

Anyway, "quite deceivable" is unproven.

A pitcher with a good curve ball would disagree.

[BaalChatzaf]

Anyway, "quite deceivable" is unproven.

A pitcher with a good curve ball would disagree.

Or a card-sharper or sleight of hand artist. It is easy to fool the eye.

It is done every day. Play the pea under the shell game.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions?

Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

Of course. I have no other choice. I use what I have, regardless of how good or not good it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Probably three kinds of false, too, since the "processing" comes from three different sets of inputs.

Heh.

Here's an idea. Nothing is ever right or wrong because we can never trust the inputs to be accurate.

Where have I heard that before, I wonder I wonder... Plato, maybe?

Obviously, I don't agree with people who think like this. They're wrong. Totally.

I can say that because I have right and wrong as part of my mental landscape. They don't have that when dealing with external inputs. Right and wrong are only mental games to them inside their heads and not connected to the rest of reality.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Probably three kinds of false, too, since the "processing" comes from three different sets of inputs.

Heh.

Here's an idea. Nothing is ever right or wrong because we can never trust the inputs to be accurate.

(Where have I heard that before, I wonder I wonder... Plato, maybe? )

Michael

You also heard if from John von Neuman who showed how to design arbitrarily reliable detectors from unreliable components. By using majority logic circuits the unreliability of the components can be overcome.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_logic

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

What does redundancy have to do with reliability if you start with an unreliable input?

All a redundant screwed up thing does is double the screw-up.

Anyway, Plato came before your gentleman friend...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

What does redundancy have to do with reliability if you start with an unreliable input?

All a redundant screwed up thing does is double the screw-up.

Michael

Did you read the article? There is a formula at the bottom that shows the probability of failure of the entire circuit given the probability of failure of the components only assume that failures occur independently. Read what the formula says.,

Bottom line. If one uses enough unreliable components whose failures are statistically independent then the reliability of the circuit can be made arbitrarily close to zero failure. A remarkable result.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I skimmed the article. The problem is when you can't say for sure what is failure and what is not because you can't trust your own eyes.

Like I said, using correct and failed in that context is a mental game and nothing more.

Be reduntant all you like with that and good luck.

As to the engineering thing, it is impressive. But only for people who know right from wrong, not pretend to know, and are not players of word games when they should be seeing.

After all, you can only verify through observation.

Michael

[anthony]

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions? Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

Of course. I have no other choice. I use what I have, regardless of how good or not good it is. Ba'al Chatzaf

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions? Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

Of course. I have no other choice. I use what I have, regardless of how good or not good it is. Ba'al Chatzaf

Fine, then don't you see we are arguing this on different sides of a fine line.

You 'see' the senses as a tools of survival - that they can be deceived momentarily, by sleight of hand, or any example you've mentioned, I agree.

A shadow falling over a stop sign, an 'invisible' step on a tiled floor, could be considered a temporary 'fallibility' of vision - also, dangerous.

IOW, you are taking the empirical approach, alone. Out of context incidents, frozen moments, and exceptions.

(The stolen concept fallacy applies there, since you have to use perception to prove perception fallible. Therefore your conclusion must also be fallible.)

By no means am I making this to be some kind of duality in the 'purpose' of perception; but *philosophically*, empirical data is assumed - self-evident. As well as moment-to-moment "survival", the senses are our only grounding in reality, and the only source of our concepts. This is the side of the fine line Objectivism takes:

The SUM of our perceptual input, over a period, IS infallible, in this broader context.

[BaalChatzaf]

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions? Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

Of course. I have no other choice. I use what I have, regardless of how good or not good it is. Ba'al Chatzaf

In your experience, do you, or do you not trust your senses enough to form concepts from those perceptions? Studying the eye, and its properties, in your empirical laboratory, won't answer that, alone.

Of course. I have no other choice. I use what I have, regardless of how good or not good it is. Ba'al Chatzaf

Fine, then don't you see we are arguing this on different sides of a fine line.

You 'see' the senses as a tools of survival - that they can be deceived momentarily, by sleight of hand, or any example you've mentioned, I agree.

A shadow falling over a stop sign, an 'invisible' step on a tiled floor, could be considered a temporary 'fallibility' of vision - also, dangerous.

IOW, you are taking the empirical approach, alone. Out of context incidents, frozen moments, and exceptions.

(

What you call the empirical approach alone. Out of context incidents, frozen moments and exception is what I call paying attention to the nitty gritty realities. Exceptions can kill you dead. That is why one must pay attention to them. I am glued to reality. Reality is the sum total of out of context incidents and accidents. Holistic accounts exist in our heads. Individual things and happening are Out There. Do not confuse the dots (provided by nature) with the dotted lines connecting them. You and I draw those by a branial process.

Think of me as the Concrete Bound Ape that Ayn Rand loves to excoriate. If I did not pay attention to the concrete things of my environment I would have been dead a hundred times over and we would not be having this conversation.

In addition to being a Concrete Bound Ape, I am also a Barbarian. Conan is one of my heroes. I am not an Objectivist. I am a Conanist.

Ba'al Chatzaf (Concrete Bound Ape).