RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 20, 2017 at 2:42 am
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2017 at 2:46 am by emjay.)
It might not be 'saccades' but it's something like that... I think that's the right spelling. Very rapid, imperceptible eye scanning movements, involved in reading among other things as I understand it.
Anyway I take your points on board and accept them, and they make sense. But ultimately I need convincing in a way I don't think you or anyone can do, because there's no way I can know if you and I (assuming you have 20 20 vision) see the same thing when we look at an object or if there is some subtle difference between what I consider 'flat' and what you see. My intuition is that it's flat, but you may see the same thing. But there's no way to compare and there's also no way to rule out the possibility of my mind coming up with that conclusion somehow for its own sake. I don't know how to put that. In my view, the neural model is extracted from what (sensory data) it's got to work with so my actual neural model could have essentially compensated in some way for the deficiency in what it represents.
Anyway I take your points on board and accept them, and they make sense. But ultimately I need convincing in a way I don't think you or anyone can do, because there's no way I can know if you and I (assuming you have 20 20 vision) see the same thing when we look at an object or if there is some subtle difference between what I consider 'flat' and what you see. My intuition is that it's flat, but you may see the same thing. But there's no way to compare and there's also no way to rule out the possibility of my mind coming up with that conclusion somehow for its own sake. I don't know how to put that. In my view, the neural model is extracted from what (sensory data) it's got to work with so my actual neural model could have essentially compensated in some way for the deficiency in what it represents.
