丁heory Ladenness StarryStarryNight: hmm..not necessarily. well, it depends if you're just glancing at something or if you're observing it intently. i think..it's like hearing and listening. i can be hearing some music, but i may not be listening to the lyrics or paying attention to the notes. whereas someone else who is listening intently will be able to capture more out of it. depends on the level of interest and concentration, i'd say... (Edited by StarryStarryNight)  CoIin: Ok, good point. Let's rule out all extraneous factors. I have your complete attention and shout "Look!" Now are we guaranteed to see the same? StarryStarryNight: i'd still have to say it depends. seeing an apple as an apple is straightforward and leaves no room for other interpretation. looking at an abstract painting on the other hand, that depends on each person's perceptions...and we may interpret/see it differently from someone else looking at the same painting..  Dennae: Still depends. Are you looking at a concrete object or an event that can be laden with perception or attributional bias. A cop taking witness statements will find (on the whole) the witness statements do not agree. CoIin: Thanks to both. And good point Dennae - I'll try to be as clear as possible below. So in both of Starry's cases, the scene presented to all observers is identical, right? We could idealize this to say that their retinal patterns are identical. Is that fair? Also, to be consistent, let's say that all the scenes we present to our observers are on canvas, so that we don't need to worry about a real objects/objects on canvas distinction, ok? So the "apple" is a painted apple. In the first example :- (our subjects are presented with a painting of an apple, rabbit, screwdriver, ,,, whatever) 1. all observers have the same retinal pattern 2. all observers will report seeing an apple 3. no interpretation is performed by any observer In the second example (an abstract painting) 1. all observers have the same retinal pattern 2. all observers interpret what they see, and different observers might report seeing different things due to different interpretations 3. all observers are aware that they are interpreting Would you agree with all this? Next question - Is it possible for different observers to have identical retinal patterns, no interpretation occurs, yet what is seen is different? (You're doing great, and helping me to clarify some ideas too. Thanks  )
Dennae: No two people can have identical retinal patterns. Biometric security is built on this proposition. Then you would have to think about the primary visual cortex V1 and V2, V3, V4 and V5 and how, and if, two individuals could have the same configuration. I believe that when I was really really little someone told me that that object has a label and the label was, in this case, "apple". So whenever I see that object I think apple. Do I see an apple as other people see it? To paraphase Robbie Burns: "Oh would some power the gift give us, To see objects as others see them". CoIin: What of the famous duck-rabbit? "Now she sees a rabbit; now she sees a duck" or "Now she interprets what she sees as a rabbit; now she interprets what she sees as a duck" Which is more correct? CoIin: @ Starry - "seeing an apple as an apple is straightforward and leaves no room for other interpretation" What if the person had never seen an apple before? And if the girl in the video above had never seen a rabbit, could she see the picture as anything other than a duck? StarryStarryNight: @ Colin Ok, let's break it down this way.. When a person sees something, he literally sees it. Whether or not, he recognizes what he is seeing is another question. If someone who has never seen an apple were to see it for the first time, I believe he is still gonna be seeing the same thing as any other person. That is, he is seeing something round and red (assuming he is not color blind). Only thing is, he might not recognize it as an apple and an edible item. And that girl in the video, she could see black lines on a white page just like you and me. But to recognize the line formations as a duck or a rabbit depends on prior knowldege/experience/exposure... So, seeing is one thing. But how much information you can glean from seeing depends on other factors, i believe..  cowpoker: I agree with Dennae. Not sure you can say there's no room for interpretation, if you think about what "seeing" actually is. Light may bounce off that apple and hit the photoreceptors in the same way for everyone. But once that neurological impulse is sent from the retina via the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain for interpretation into an image, it can be probably be influenced by any number of things, including brain chemistry, genetics, psychology. Since we've all been conditioned to describe what we see in the same way, we probably can't be sure that what we all call a red sphere wouldn't actually look like a yellow blob or something to another person, were we somehow able to swap those actual mental images. So even within the same person, perhaps all it would take is a small biochemical adjustment, hormone level fluctuation, neuron misfire or electrical short circuit type thing to alter perception.. perhaps subtle enough that you'd still call it an apple, but not be seeing quite the exact thing you did before. Neuroscience aside, senses seem to be strongly linked to emotions, so regarding "Are you looking at a concrete object or an event that can be laden with perception or attributional bias." ...how sure are we that our perceptions of even simple objects are not laden with bias dependent on our moods, beliefs or circumstances? How I interpret what I see may change as I drift from contemplation of the wonders of nature and skill of the artist, to just feeling somewhat hungry.  cowpoker: Not sure that feeling differently about what you see actually makes you see differently though.  CoIin: Thanks, Starry - excellent response  There is an argument in philosophy over what counts as seeing, and the role, if any, of interpretation. The traditional philosopher's answer is that seeing is simply the "apprehension of sense data", (and thus we all see roughly the same). Everything beyond that is interpretation. On this view then, what the observer reports - "I see an apple", "I see a duck", etc - are the result of seeing in conjunction with interpretation. Some newer philosphers take exception to this view. They say that these are all cases of pure seeing. Interpretation is something quite different and irrelevant in these cases. When presented with the abstract painting, some people might report seeing a woman, or a tree, or simply nothing. The traditional answer then is that we all see the same thing (the "sense data" ) but we may have varying interpretations. or no interpretation at all. The non-traditional answer in a non-typical case like this where we're confronted with "haze" wouldn't be very different, I think. We "struggle" to interpret, and we generally know we're doing it; we're aware of the fragility of our interpretation. Seeing in this case might be akin to the seeing of the infant whose visual faculties are up and running, yet confronted with a jumble of unfamiliarity. But let's face it, most visual experiences are not of this kind. The difference between the traditional and non-traditional accounts of seeing is more pronounced in our typical everyday visual experiences - solidity rather than abstraction. In familiar cases, like the apple, the traditional explanation is that we see first - we "apprehend the sense data" - and then we interpret what we see to be an apple, but in this case (they claim) the interpretation is effectively instantaneous and therefore not even registered. On the other hand, the new-fangled philosophers argue that what we see is an apple - no interpretation occurs. The claim is that interpretation is an act of thinking; seeing is a state. The girl in the video sees a duck, and/or sees a rabbit, this is not an act of interpretation. They claim, and as you very astutely noted (  ) that seeing is as much a test of knowledge as it is a test of our faculties - we can only see what we KNOW. Therefore what is seen by two people with different knowledge is NOT the same. And indeed, I CANNOT see what you see if I lack your knowledge.So let's look at your suggestion - "When a person sees something, he literally sees it. Whether or not, he recognizes what he is seeing is another question. If someone who has never seen an apple were to see it for the first time, I believe he is still gonna be seeing the same thing as any other person. That is, he is seeing something round and red (assuming he is not color blind). Only thing is, he might not recognize it as an apple and an edible item." Your analysis reflects the traditional view. The new dudes, I think, would disagree. It seems likely that both of your visual experiences would be "organized" in the same way, unlike in the duck/rabbit example where entirely different organizations of the experience are possible. The other dude, while never having seen an apple, has doubtless seen apple-like objects (pears?) and therefore his brain is likely to organize the data accordingly. The main difference in this case therefore, I think, lies not in the organization, but in the "theory-ladenness" of the experience. When you see an apple, the "seeing" is inextricably bound to all your conceptual knowledge of apples. His seeing experience will lack this. Furthermore, you said "When a person sees something, he literally sees it" - but what is "it"? "It" implies that some form of recognition has already happened - the view presented has already been identified as an object, albeit an unfamiliar object. You seem to be assuming that there is "something" (and only ONE thing) there to be "seen". Your suggestion is that there is an apple in the picture- and ONLY an apple - the apple is somehow absolute - the apple is "REALLY THERE". Who's to say the apple picture doesn't have another aspect to it like the duck/rabbit? Or several other aspects? People have seen faces on the surface of Mars. This is a positive identification (for some observers). Should we then say that these people are "wrong"? In that case, am I wrong to see a duck if you see a rabbit? Or am I wrong to see a bomb if you see an apple? If we asked the girl in the video, "What do you see?" would she really say "I see black lines.... etc"? In fact she's quite explicit about what she sees - her words are very revealing. She sees a rabbit. She sees a duck. She doesn't see lines. And, as I think you're suggesting, isn't "I see black lines" a positive identification too? Isn't that as good an answer as "I see a duck"? Is the duck more "there" than the lines? Perhaps the "duck" is the result of random scribblings Is there any difference between the "I see black lines/I see a duck" distinction and the "I see a duck/I see a rabbit" distinction? Isn't it just as valid to say "The duck can be seen as black lines" as it is to say "The black lines can be seen as a duck"? And are you quite sure these ARE black lines? Are you quite sure there are no gaps that your mind is filling in? The new philosophers claim that not only knowledge, but context is critical to what we see. If we'd "primed" a subject with prior talk of rabbits, or even took him to a rabbit farm (  ), it seems much more likely that he'll see the duck/rabbit as a rabbit. He is now "rabbit-biased". Finally, your statement, "Only thing is, he might not recognize it as an apple and an edible item" is wonderful. This is EXACTLY the point that these new philosophers want to stress - obervation is "theory laden". That edibility wasn't contained within the "sense data" now, was it?  Tee hee. You brought the notion of edibility with you to the observation.A dude from a remote island where all apples are poisonous would look at the same apple and see something inedible. Therefore you and he would look at exactly the same object and see different things. For example, you see food, he doesn't. You said "I believe he is still gonna be seeing the same thing as any other person" - how can he be? This is not a question of interpretation; it is an integral part of seeing itself. What we see is determined (at least to some extent) by knowledge, and as soon as that identification is made, all prior knowledge associated with the object of identification is brought to bear upon it. Let's not get confused here. I think what we're stressing is conceptual knowledge. I don't think anyone is suggesting that seeing an apple calls forth your knowledge of which year apples were introduced to India. But what IS intrinsic to your visual experience is the KIND of thing that apples are. Eg. it's not going to move, and it's not going to talk. It's not dangerous. It's symmetrical; the invisible side is (roughly)the same as the visible side. You don't have to search your memory banks for this information - it comes along with the recognition. This concept is enormously important in the philosophy of science. In science, observation has traditionally been taken to be the final court of appeal - observation is neutral. If we conduct an experiment, for example, we may interpret the results differently, but we SEE the same. Or so they say.... But if the new guys are right, and all observation is indeed theory-laden, then we don't see the same. The ancient astronomers and modern astronomers do not see the same Sun albeit with different understandings; they see different things. I'm still trying to get my head around all this and I might be a bit confused over some of the details above  I'll point you to the article I've just been reading if you're interested. (Edited by CoIin) CoIin: @ Cow - Thanks for that But as you said, hunger can get in the way. So I'll chew over what you wrote while I'm chewing over lunch. (And in this case Starry is right - that's a burger, baby - no two ways about it )) Later....  (Post deleted by calybonos ) CoIin: @ Cow - "How I interpret what I see may change as I drift from contemplation of the wonders of nature and skill of the artist, to just feeling somewhat hungry" Yeah, I think the new "theory-laden" guys would be quite happy with your use of "see" and "interpret" here - your interpretation varies as you THINK @ - "we probably can't be sure that what we all call a red sphere wouldn't actually look like a yellow blob or something to another person" Exactly! Your red could be my yellow, and vice versa, and we'd never be able to tell. We would always be in complete agreement. Even looking at traffic lights, say, we would agree that the light at the top is red, but we'd be seeing different colors. (Edited by CoIin) (Post deleted by calybonos ) (Post deleted by calybonos ) (Post deleted by calybonos ) CoIin: Tee hee Well, compare the 7th character from the right with the title of this thread. And you thought you'd seen only English? People have been executed for less. And pigs | Philosophy Chat Room 22 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
