tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post6240933196501893550..comments2023-04-06T03:04:29.318-05:00Comments on The Bounds of Cognition: TSRM's Shark Example 4Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-32936712787318558802010-11-02T09:22:41.269-05:002010-11-02T09:22:41.269-05:00Because I have an account of how the visual experi...Because I have an account of how the visual experience arises that accounts for why you see what you see in that case? It's first person and doesn't include anything the perceiver has no basis to know.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-79948430978519246932010-11-02T06:45:24.059-05:002010-11-02T06:45:24.059-05:00"Summary: illusions do pose an important ques..."Summary: illusions do pose an important question to direct realist accounts of perception that must be answered, but the challenge has been met; illusions create true visual experiences under artificially constrained circumstances "<br /><br />http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/note-on-holt-on-visual-illusions-heft.html<br /><br />Illusions create true visual experiences? Why don't you think you are committing the psychologist's fallacy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-76540845779115851562010-11-02T05:22:42.217-05:002010-11-02T05:22:42.217-05:00Right, but they don't have a first person expl...Right, but they don't have a first person explanation. The problem is *the shark* takes there to be a fish and *the shark* takes there not to be a fish. So, why does the shark quit digging? There is no first person account of how the shark resolves this.<br /><br />A separate problem is the problem of false takings, which EP seems not to like.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-16686600121891219932010-11-02T04:10:56.839-05:002010-11-02T04:10:56.839-05:00But they aren't interested in explaining thing...But they aren't interested in explaining things from a third person perspective. A theory of perception has to account for behaviour from the first person perspective.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-46327999641937422242010-11-01T15:58:09.184-05:002010-11-01T15:58:09.184-05:00"it's incorrect to say the shark is in er..."it's incorrect to say the shark is in error, isn't taking a 3rd person perspective"<br /><br />I'm not saying that. When I say that the shark is in error that is indeed my third person perspective. And, I'm not confusing that with the shark's first person perspective.<br /><br />I think I'm clear on what the shark's first person perspective is and what my third person perspective is. The problem for TSRM is that from the third person perspective they have a tough time explaining why the shark stop digging when it both takes there to be a fish present (because it detects F) and takes there not to be a fish present (because it has dug around in the sand). How do they explain the shark's resolution of its conflicting takes?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-11725519009428103922010-11-01T15:46:58.929-05:002010-11-01T15:46:58.929-05:00I would put in the shark's cartoon "thoug...<i>I would put in the shark's cartoon "thought bubble" : Edible thing there.</i><br />Agreed.<br /><br />But the TSRM analysis, that it's incorrect to say the shark is in error, isn't taking a 3rd person perspective. It's explicitly taking the shark's perspective, ie the perspective required of a theory of perception.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-85065688286826658382010-11-01T12:57:16.608-05:002010-11-01T12:57:16.608-05:00So, let me go back to your first broaching of this...So, let me go back to your first broaching of this "psychologist's fallacy" line.<br /><br />"At the point where he detects the field specifying 'fish', he isn't in error; perhaps more specifically, he can't know he's in error, and the only person able to describe the situation this way is the evil psychologist who has some privileged access to the ruse.<br /><br />From the perspective of the evil psychologist, that is a way to talk about the shark. But actually this smacks of James' 'psychologist's fallacy'; taking your description and making it the explanation. "<br /><br />So, you seem to be suggesting that when *I* talk about the shark being in error I am committing this fallacy, but when *you* talk about the shark not being in error, you are not committing the fallacy. Both seem to me equally to be third person perspectives and pretty unobjectionable. What you seem to object to is merely *my* third person perspective.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-84190419532154422612010-11-01T10:21:23.916-05:002010-11-01T10:21:23.916-05:00Or, think of it this way.
I would put in the sh...Or, think of it this way. <br /><br />I would put in the shark's cartoon "thought bubble" : Edible thing there.<br /><br />I would not put in the shark's cartoon thought bubble": I am in error in taking there to be an edible thing there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-67160193397754107472010-11-01T10:13:50.285-05:002010-11-01T10:13:50.285-05:00"And the point is (still!) that the shark has..."And the point is (still!) that the shark has no basis for knowing about the error. "<br /><br />Agreed, but the shark is still in error. The perceptual state of the shark according to TSRM is that it takes there to be something edible. Saying that the shark is in error is to say something about the relationship between the shark's perceptual state and the world.<br /><br />But, this line about describing beliefs as in error is not TSRM's. At some point, there has to be some theory of false belief, right?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4718931137844429374.post-62036768598413119792010-11-01T10:05:24.336-05:002010-11-01T10:05:24.336-05:00Turvey et al explicitly do not make the latter cla...Turvey et al explicitly do not make the latter claim, as is pretty clear in that last paragraph.<br /><br />And the point is (still!) that the shark has no basis for knowing about the error. It can only 'take there to be an edible fish there', because that's what the available information (initially) specifies. (Further exploration will reveal the problem.) <br /><br />So you can describe (from your privileged, 3rd person perspective) the shark as being in error all you like, but you will be making the psychologist's fallacy. Your description will always be the incorrect way to describe anything about the perceptual state of the shark, and thus of no use in a theory of perception, which is what TSRM are trying to lay a foundation for.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.com