From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!psgrain!percy!nosun!hilbert!max Tue Nov 19 11:10:11 EST 1991
Article 1325 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!psgrain!percy!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Summary: Expectations influence perception. So does desire.
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.202756.18746@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 14 Nov 91 20:27:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1991Nov14.202756.18746
References: <37713@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Nov05.084137.29880km <37859@shamash.cdc.com>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 49

In article <37859@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>In article <37802@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>...  Sensations and percepts are
>always automatically formed by the nervous system, while concepts never
>are - they have to be formed by deliberately focusing the mind on reality
>in a particular way.

You appear to be ignoring the active exploratory nature of vision.
You speak as if the eye was a camera, presenting the brain with
a finished picture. You also appear to be ignoring the demonstrable
effect of expectations on perception. (see below).

If you like, you can draw a nice clean diagram separating
automatic, mechanized perception from 'volitional' (whatever the
hell that is) abstract concepts, but I don't think that a close
examination of the actual hardware will support that view.

>...  The sensations that give rise to each percept are put together
>according to the nature of the entities involved, namely, the nature
>of the apple, the dog, the rock, and my sensory apparatus - there is
>no possibility of an error at either the sensory or the perceptual
>level.

Demonstrably false. This morning I was searching my room
for a book, repeatedly missing it out in plain view (I expected
what was in plain sight to be a somewhat similar, but not all that similar
book). My expectations repeatedly caused me to perceive the book
I wanted, as the one I did not want. The data was there,
but I didn't explore it right. I would consider expectations as
"volitional" as anything else, wouldn't you?

>In this context, an error would have to be due to my senses
>acting contrary to their nature, and since they have no power to do
>this (even when damaged), this is impossible.

This sounds almost like scholastic philosophy. You
should spend less time reasoning about perception, and reading up
on the actual equipment controlling things.

>This posting is already too long to justify tackling the topic of
>volition here, so I'll leave it for later (if the discussion gets
>back to it).

Please tackle it.

>--
>Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==


