3 ms·
Sounds like a false equivalence. The contradiction here is between our physical rendition of a phenomenon (like the image being rendered upside-down on the reti
by namero999 4y ago
Sounds like a false equivalence. The contradiction here is between our physical rendition of a phenomenon (like the image being rendered upside-down on the retina due to optics) and experience. We don't have a physical description of belief systems or philosophical views (nor we can), so I don't see how the sarcastic remark applies to those contexts.
- jrh206 4y agoCognitive biases exist in a variety of contexts. The phenomenon of saccadic masking doesn't imply the existence of those other biases logically, but TheOtherHobbes makes a pertinent generalisation, imo.
- namero999 4y agoLike I briefly mention in another comment, there is a point in claiming that what mind does is precisely to constantly deceive itself, yes. But the original comment sounds like hooking up to some factoids to bulk dismiss religious beliefs and meaning as illusions.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jimmaswell 4y ago> upside-down on the retina due to optics This is completely arbitrary when you think about it. Why would the physical orientation of the brain and its inputs necessarily have to have any correlation with anything? You don't expect it to have any meaning whether you plug in an HDMI cable vertically or horizontally, or what direction your RAM chips face. If someone turned your brain sideways or upside down while keeping the "cables" in tact you wouldn't even know it.
- namero999 4y agoWell, there's nothing I disagree with in your statement, but am also not sure how to fit it within the previous exchange. OP was implying that, because there could be cases where the description of a phenomenon contrasts with the direct experience of it (such as the image being "flipped" due to the law of optics), then we are always deceived. I disagree with that characterization because either we say that mind always deceives itself (I can work with that statement) or you can't exclusively point out world views and beliefs, because in those cases we don't have a physical representation to contrast them with, therefore it's a non-sequitur.
- jimmaswell 4y agoI guess it doesn't contradict what you've said, but one of the tweets from the author of the main thread does repeat the cliche that our vision "should" be upside down because of the eye thing, which I've seen repeated a lot.