--- On Mon, 6/14/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 11439] Re: moon and mind > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 12:52 PM > > We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is > within > ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and > that only my > own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus > the > existence of a real object outside me can never be given > immediately > and directly in perception, but can only be added in > thought to the > perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, > and thus > inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of > the word, > therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can > only infer > their existence from my own internal perception, regarding > the > perception as an effect of something external that must be > the > proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, > that an > idealist is someone who denies the existence of external > objects of > the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by > immediate > and direct perception … . > —Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f. > > As far as understanding the phenomenon as a pure illusion > it is worth > noting that clouds directly above appear bigger that clouds > that are > viewed at the horizon, as they are several miles away. As > the moon is > most often seen with some clouds the comparison between > small clouds > to the moon against large clouds and the moon would answer > the > problem. =============== G: As for the moon illusion, it is the answer, however not rigorously formulated. "Most often" is not often enough: the illusion persists within cloudless skies in both events. IMO, the brain had been during millions of years hard coded to the visual perception structured as perspective. Horizon is the limit where parallels apparently meet. The same object e.g.cloud is measured as smaller when close to the horizon. When it's measured as equal, it appears larger close to the horizon. Enough to draw two converging lines and two equal squares one far, the other close to lines meeting point.
As for Kant: Kant's ontology of the First Enlightenment rationalized philosophy by banning Noumena (Dinge an Sich) from cognition and by being accordingly derived from the cutting edge of his contemporary science, i.e. from Newton's Model. However, this science was afflicted by several dogmas: mechanistic fabric of "Reality", absolute time/space and absolute certitude of cognition contradicting Cartesian uncertainty. Newton dodged their refutal with his "hypotheses non fingo", but Kant could not follow him there, as his job consisted precisely in making hypotheses and sincerity of his ontology could be bought only at the cost of truly reflecting its roots: from paradoxical science Kant rigorously derived a paradoxical ontology. In spite of having banned Noumena from cognition, he founded his Ontology in absolute time/space, and other Noumena or "absolute categories of Pure Reason". His irrational synthetic propositions a priori reposed in those noumena in order to satisfy the dogma of certain, absolute science. Nearly nothing of Kant, with exception of ban of Noumena, keeps any valifity for us. And, of course, of his method deriving rational ontology from the concurrent scientific revolution. In his wake I tried to derive a rational ontology from the second scientific revolution of extended relativity. Inter alia, it divorces with the sempiternal obsession of founding ontology in "objects", whether internal, external or what not. In accordance with Einstein's physical reality I found my ontology in perceptual events out of which are subsequently and mentally glued the "physical bodies". Taken out of context of the 180 pages of my recently published essay it may seem controversial, but it cannot be reasonably discussed out of this context. My essay is entitled: SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT TOME I Einstein's Physical Reality and Relativistic Dialectic Its preview's link: https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1069314 It's available in http://www.amazon.com/Second-Enlightenment-Einsteins-Relativistic-Dialectic/dp/1452825033 Cheers Georges. ============= -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
