From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon May 25 14:06:53 EDT 1992
Article 5815 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (formerly "on meaning")
Message-ID: <1992May21.170529.9463@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Keywords: symbol, analog, Turing Test, robotics
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992May20.191738.18644@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992May20.221931.20652@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May21.145410.1055@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 17:05:29 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <1992May21.145410.1055@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>In article <1992May20.191738.18644@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>>
>>>  It can be argued that you never see a cat now, either, but only the image
>>>of a cat.  In other words, what you perceive of vision is perhaps already
>>>better thought of as a virtual reality, created by the brain as a way of
>>>integrating input from the two eyes, perhaps from other sensory organs, and
>>>information from memory.

>Ne right on pas! Nothing is to be gained by this regress inward. Are you
>really prepared to argue that we do not see the world, but only our own
>retinal images of the world? And who what sees those?

  I was most certainly not trying to make a distinction between the world
and the retinal image of that world.  Indeed there is little to gain
from such a distinction.

>It's not a question of personal identity. It's a question of coherent
>explanation.

  Then how about a coherent explanation from you?  How do you account for
the various phenomena usually referred to as optical illusions?  When we
see things that are not there, or fail to see things that are there, are
you claiming that these distortions are already present on the retinal
image?  I see it as a more coherent explanation to say that what we see is
not the retinal image at all, but is really an interpretation of the
retinal image.  And both memory and other (i.e. non-visual) sensory input
can significantly influence that interpretation.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


