[MD] Tit's

[David M]

Krimel/DMB

Actually we need to get below the concepts here because what is
key to the MOQ and science is that we are not simply spectators making
up concepts about some detached realm of objects. Surely the basis of
experience is values and change. We are changed by the situations we
find ourselves in. Our situations is experienced by us because it is
changing us and that change has a value for us, either good/sublime,
bad/awful or something inbetween. Such experience based on
change and its value comes before the concepts and models
used to make sense of this experience. Of course some of these
models are created by the human body and are an historical
inheritence as Krim points out. Yet we have to notice the good
or bad of something in our situation before we are likely to adapt
and actively respond to it. Seems to me MOQ fits the science better
than SOM and the science also fits MOQ better as SOM creates
problems understanding science and how science is possible.

David M

>
> Krimel said:
> If what we "see" were just the raw sense data not only would it be out of 
> focus, upside down and have a hole in it, it would be entirely two 
> dimensional. While we can abstract three dimensional models from monocular 
> input through our experience with visual textures, relative size of near 
> and distant objects and so forth, binocular vision facilitates the 
> process.
>
> dmb says:
> Visuality and perception are studied by philosophers as well as eye 
> doctors. I recently learned about an illuminating example of just how 
> powerful concepts are in the act of perception. Leonardo da Vinci did his 
> best to carefully observe the internal anatomy for a drawing of the same. 
> We're talking about an attempt to copy the organs of a corpse onto paper 
> while looking directly at the actual corpse. But Leo's medical knowledge 
> came down to him, for the most part, from Galen, an ancient physician who 
> was wrong about a few things. And these wrong things showed up in da 
> Vinci's drawings. He didn't copy what he saw so much as what he knew. The 
> concepts he'd inherited altered his perception despite the care he took to 
> see clearly. And this is true with all our perceptions. To a degree even 
> further than you suggest, we can only see what our concepts allow us to 
> see.
>
> And of course those who make observations about perception are no 
> exception. We also have inherited certain concepts about anatomy, 
> particularly the sense organs, and this has a profound effect on what we 
> can see even with respect to seeing itself. That's why I don't take your 
> medical descriptions as a serious argument against the MOQ. That's just a 
> case of swimming in the shallow end of the pool, which isn't really 
> swimming at all.
>
> Besides, in my case it is not an illusion. I really am out of focus and 
> upside down. There is also a hole in me but I'd rather not talk about 
> that. Its just too personal.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you.
> http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>