What We See with Fred Dretske
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 07. 2024
- We see (at least) three fundamentally different sorts of things: objects (a tomato), properties of these objects (the tomato's size, shape, color, orientation), and facts about them (that is a tomato, that is red). Stanford philosophy professor Fred Dretske discusses the first: our perception of objects. How many objects do we see in brief but attentive observation? The answer tells us something important about the nature of conscious perceptual experience. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [3/2008] [Humanities] [Show ID: 13821]
Knew nothing of Dretske till now. And now see that he's a freakin' genius.
Loved all his books. Now love the man, too.
The next thing he should look at is how DIFFERENT language affects object recognition and how lack of semantic knowledge affects perception.
This entire presentation is COMMON FREAKING SENSE.
so underrated...
You see what is there, not what is not. You don't have the memory to hold what was not there. It's basically "EVERYTHING- WHAT IS THERE= WHAT IS NOT THERE
All the properties he mentions are tropes, not universals, and therefore not abstract but spatiotemporally located.
Very good talk, but:
P1: The wall is made of bricks all over.
P2: No part of the wall is blue.
C: Therefore, no brick is blue.
Here is a global property which supervenes on a local property. When we see the global property we are able to conclued something about the local property.
Yeah, but how did you see a global property if you didn't see the "globe", i.e., each brick?
I dunno, it feels like he is more playing word games than really revealings something new. The question at the end showed it - IMO he didn't answer it.
If I were for example to blur the brick image - I would not anymore distinguish 350 bricks, but I can still say, that none of them are blue. And I think thats how our vision works - I don't have to check each and every brick to see that there is an exception. I can spot the contrast around the blue brick.
Thus I think his idea is wrong.
mind rape. :D
Decent talk, but his conclusion doesn't follow. Obviously information about each brick hits the retina, which is then processed by the brain, but that in no way implies what supposedly is or isn't "consciously experienced". If a brick had happened to be blue, then it is quite plausible that the low level difference in retinal information caused the conscious experience of the blue brick, whereas being orange the information was discarded as irrelevent. Neural processing is about efficiency.