> I am not talking about the creative process. I am talking about the
> perception of a natural world phenomena that has never before been
> encountered. There can be no a-priori scientific knowledge in such
> situations. It is as far from a metaphor as you can get. I mean literal
> invisibility. See the red photon discussion in the LZ posting. If all you
> have is a-priori abstract (non-phenomenal) rules of interpretation of
> sensory signals to go by, then one day you are going to misinterpret
> because the signals came in the same from a completely different source
> and you;d never know it.

Yes, that's a mistake humans make too.  Even simpler, have you ever seen the
demonstration in which a long red rod is hung in a rotating trapezoidal
white window frame.  In spite of knowing exactly what is happening, the
window frame appears to a a square frame that is oscillating while the rod
rotates and in some way passes through the material of the frame.  Your
pre-scientific hard-wiring misleads you.

Peceptual fields can misrepresent reality. The 'virtual reality' generator
is not perfect, buit it's pretty good. Scientific procedure aimes to
eliminate the effects of such misdirection. Through the use of test and
control and review and critical argument. The main thing is that there is
a perceptual field of the external world. Without it we wouldn't even have
a chance to be mistaken about the external world!

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to