1
   

Philosophy- What Do we See?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 01:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
The original assignment itself is arbitrary.

That defies belief.

Perhaps your belief. Not mine.

joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
The drug messes with the part of the forebrain that processes the input from the optical nerve. Their brain's language center accurately says what that part of the forebrain thinks it perceives.

Then you're wrong.

I don't know about that, but I'm certainly beginning to get a sense that we are in less-than-complete agreement.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 03:13 pm
Quote:
An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a perception that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences. They can also be known as "mind games".


Quote:
To make sense of the world it is necessary to organize incoming sensations into information which is meaningful. Gestalt psychologists believe one way this is done is by perceiving individual sensory stimuli as a meaningful whole.[3] Gestalt organization can be used to explain many illusions including the Duck-Rabbit illusion where the image as a whole switches back and forth from being a duck then being a rabbit and why in the figure-ground illusion the figure and ground are reversible.
In this there is no "Drawn" White Triangle. Click caption for an explanation.
Kanizsa triangle

In addition, Gestalt theory can be used to explain the illusory contours in the Kanizsa Triangle. A floating white triangle, which does not exist, is seen. The brain has a need to see familiar simple objects and has a tendency to create a "whole" image from individual elements.[3] Gestalt means "form" or "shape" in German. However, another explanation of the Kanizsa Triangle is based in evolutionary psychology and the fact that in order to survive it was important to see form and edges. The use of perceptual organization to create meaning out of stimuli is the principle behind other well-known illusions including impossible objects. Our brain makes sense of shapes and symbols putting them together like a jigsaw puzzle, formulating that which isn't there to that which is believable.


Quote:
Perceptual constancies are sources of illusions. Colour constancy and brightness constancy are responsible for the fact that a familiar object will appear the same colour regardless of the amount of or colour of light reflecting from it. An illusion of colour or contrast difference can be created when the luminosity or colour of the area surrounding an unfamiliar object is changed. The contrast of the object will appear darker against a black field that reflects less light compared to a white field even though the object itself did not change in colour. Similarly, the eye will compensate for colour contrast depending on the colour cast of the surrounding area.


Quote:
In this illusion, the colored regions appear rather different, roughly orange and brown. In fact they are the same colour, and in identical immediate surrounds, but the brain changes its assumption about colour due to the global interpretation of the surrounding image. Also, the white tiles that are shadowed are the same colour as the grey tiles outside the shadow.


LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2011 09:44 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I don't know about that, but I'm certainly beginning to get a sense that we are in less-than-complete agreement.

I'm used to it.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 10:31 am
@loopylu15,
loopylu15 wrote:

What do we see with our own eyes?
An Example: I could say that the colour I see is Blue. However, it is just a noun for this colour. To someone else the blue I see could be completley different. To them it could be my version of Green. But we can never know as Colour is unexplainable.


Tell that to Goethe and Newton, as well as Wittgenstein, who wrote extensively on the explainablenenss of color.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 11:58 am
@Ding an Sich,
And G.E. Moore said it was inexplicable.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 01:05 pm
@Ding an Sich,
As we all see colours to where I stand is far easier to explain them in general then to explain "blue" or "yellow" in specific...
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 02:06 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
We do not all see colors. Some of us are color-blind. The colors are out there, but those people can't distinguish between them.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 02:47 pm
@Thomas,
yeah, I was expecting that Thomas...but concerning contrast brightness and so on one can apply the same principles previously mentioned.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 02:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
for instance, would you say that the wave spectrum of light is a sufficient description of what colour is or only a necessary element ? Could you clarify ?
Thank you.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2011 05:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
would you say that the wave spectrum of light is a sufficient description of what colour is or only a necessary element ?

Yes. The way I use the word "color", I know the color of light when I know the light's wavelength spectrum.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Could you clarify ?

No, I probably can't. The problem is that questions like the one in the initial post revolve around a cluster of words, each of which people define in terms of the others. Consequently, one never gets to an answer, because nobody in the discussion agrees on a definition of keywords that lets them ask the question intelligibly in the first place. All one ever gets to is an infinite regress of definitional busywork.

To avoid this infinite regress, I try to define as many of my keywords as possible in terms of objective measurements, and then use those words to define any other words I need. But that, of course, usually leads to allegations that my definitions are all wrong, or that I'm ridiculously reductionistic, or whatever bad words philosophy wonks like to insult each other with. (Present company excluded. I'm just saying in general.) That would all be fine if my critics offered their own keyword definitions, grounded in their own kinds of measurements or experiments. But that rarely happens. Hence my pessimism about ever clarifying anything.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2011 12:29 pm
@Thomas,
Its a fair justification...indeed definitions prove useful to avoid confusion, but certainly you agree that definitions evolve now and then...

See you around Thomas !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 09:58:22