Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
BACK TO SITE PLAN
MOON ILLUSION AND REALITY
The moon appears several times larger when raising at
the horizon, than high up in the sky.
However, measuring both at stretched arm against a pencil
one finds out that both, the narrow and the large have
exactly the same size. An ophthalmologist will find both
forms on the retina identical, thus identical retina
forms transform into large and narrow conscious moon
images when observed at the horizon and overhead.
Millions of years of genetic development forged the mind's
perspective form of spacial perception making objects
appear smaller when moving away. Thus, the same cloud,
large when close overhead, appears smaller when blown far
away towards the horizon.
Now, in contradiction with astronomical orbit, the direct
perception situates the moon at about the same distance
as the clouds, thus apparently farther away at the horizon,
than overhead. Yet, unlike the clouds it keeps the same
measured size, which makes it appear at the horizon as
larger, within the context of mind's conscious perspective
structure.
Thus, my conscious, perspective image of moon is clearly
a mind's construct.
It would seem to endorse the Copenhagen creed positing that
moon is there only when I look at it, that it's my conscious
perception that creates it.
And yet, while maintaining that moon is a construct of mind,
I believe with Einstein that it has physical reality, that
it's there independently of my particular perception.
Most of people will agree with the physical reality of moon,
but find that it renders paradoxical its view as mind's
construct, even if it's conclusively born by moon illusion.
This apparent paradox stems from the double entendre of
"physical reality", seen on the one hand by the naive
common sense and, on the other hand, by physics.
Naive common sense
For the naive common sense "physical reality" implies
objects existing as such in the World Out There, rigged
out with fictitious physicalities such as "material" fabric
and exclusive, bounded extent in the absolute empty 3D space.
The fact that we may look away from such object and review
it again afterwards is often advanced as proof of its "real
existence", independent of any human intervention.
This naive "transcendental illusion" supports our instinctive
day-to-day practice, as detailed in "REIFICATIONS" (excerpt
in Appendix 3). However, it defies itself at the first steps
of intellectual inquiry. It does not provide a slightest clue
as to why I apprehend some specific reddish circle, of all
reddish circles, as the 3D astronomic object "moon", nor how
can I identify it with a much smaller silver circle, let alone
with a thin crescent, perceived subsequently in entirely
different places.
Physics
Physics does not consider its vision of "reality" as fixed and
immutable, but refines it in line with the progress of its models.
Aristotle, Galileo and Newton, Maxwell and Lorentz and finally
Einstein had different views of "physical reality", all sharing
however the capacity to found their concurrent physical models.
We shall outline here the rudiments of the current view of
physical reality based on Einstein's insight and rigorously
founding the contemporary physics.
Current physical view
The issue is elucidated in two chapters "STRUCTURES OF MIND"
and "NATURAL MODEL", which the reader wishing to grasp it
in detail is advised to read in extenso. For commodity we
quote in Appendix 1 and 2 their essential excerpts.
In this light "moon" is a symbolic name pointing to a
secondary image of moon, collected of repeatedly occurring
particular events. As one intuits such secondary constructs
as unshakably certain and "real", I believe in moon's
"reality" without the necessity of perceiving it anew, and
recognize it as "moon" when accidentally perceived.
Additionally, by virtue of events representing compound
patterns or "situations" the symbol "moon" heads a complex
abstract structure of all concurrently known about moon,
including its trajectory and phases. This structure, unless
falsified, is intuited as unshakably certain as the secondary
construct "moon" itself.
Thus, having quitted the event "large reddish moon over the
horizon, I believe the moon to follow its model's trajectory
and am sure to eventually perceive it in predicted time,
place, size, form and color. My belief in the moon being there
is the belief in reliability of my abstract model, which has
so far reliably coordinated all appearances of moon.
Bottom line
One may object that so conceived physical reality does not
in any way refute the naive "realistic" assumption that
perceptual events are conform maps of the World Out There.
It does not, indeed, but such assumption would be on the
one hand unprovable and, on the other hand, would bring
nothing new to physics. One cannot see any physical equation
modified by it in any way.
So physics stays confined to coordinating events without
inquiring into their metaphysical status. When it
occasionally goes astray into metaphysics, Newton and Dirac
call it back to order with "hypotheses non fingo" and
"shut up and compute".
Yet, as we said above, this "naive realism" supports our
day-to-day instinctive behavior ("REIFICATIONS" and
Appendix 3).From the scientific point of view it's however,
the most noxious reification and physics starts by
overcoming it.
APPENDIX 1 Selected excerpts of the chapter
STRUCTURES OF MIND
Imagery
Mind's faculty supporting perception will be called "Imagery"
to keep it compatible with another essential function -
Imagination. Elements of imagery will be called Images, of
which percepts are a subclass.
"Image" is a strict synonym of "Event" as defined in "TIME,
AWARENESS AND EVENTS". Due to common usages, it's easier to
talk about events in the most general context of ontology
and about images in the much more specific one, that of
mind and its structures.
Sensorium
Images are brought about amongst others by sensations. We
have seen that a tactile sensation induces fully fledged
green, spheroid, compact image of apple. Sensations' output
provides input of Imagery setting off perceptual images as
maps of a hypothetical territory assumed as input of
sensations, but unattainable and incognizable as such,
which we shall call "Transcendency".
Symbolism
We have seen in "TIME, AWARENESS AND EVENTS" that events
function as clocks integrating the fundamental continuity
of time/awareness into periods bounded by their ticks and
conserving in between the continuous fabric. It holds of
course for images, synonymous with events and due to the
universality of the CD dichotomy we naturally seek a
discrete counterpart of the intrinsic continuity of images.
We find it in Symbols. Images may be mapped to symbols
which act psychologically as mnemonic pointers and
physically as fixed point attractors.
We shall call "Symbolism" the mind's faculty handling
abstract symbols and consider it as the discrete complement
of continuous images.
Images are seldom reduced to single percepts, like the apple
of our example. Usually they represent compound patterns or
"situations" in the sense Sartre gave this term, which are
mapped to Symbolism as complex abstract structures e.g.
linguistic, logical and mathematical expressions.
Recollection and (re)cognition
Images are memorized. Previously memorized ones may be
recalled to Awareness. A newly perceived Image may be
recognized as homomorphic with a recalled one, in which case
it will be considered as known.
Recognition underlies Cognition: an Image is known when it's
recognized.
Reflection and meaning
"Reflection" will denote the faculty of reciprocal transfers
between Imagery and Symbolism, involving:
1."Symbolizing" or Mapping Images into symbolic or abstract
structures.
2."Understanding", or regressing symbolic Structures to
Images, which embody their "Meaning".
APPENDIX 2 Selected excerpts of the chapter
NATURAL MODEL
Physical bodies
The first step in the setting of the physical reality is the
formation of images of "objects", or, to comply with Einstein's
terms - "physical bodies".
Out of the multitude of his event-images one takes, mentally
and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring patterns of
sensations, and collects them into a secondary image
under a particular symbolic name. One attributes to this name
its originating secondary image as meaning, thus constructing
a meaningful concept of a particular "body".
It's crucial to emphasize that one intuits such secondary
constructs as unshakably certain and "real", unlike their
originating percepts affected by doubt and uncertainty and
that finally, one conceives the "physical world" as populated
with them.
APPENDIX 3 Selected excerpt of the chapter
REIFICATION
We have seen in "NATURAL MODEL" that Mind supports
two natural attitudes:
1.Intellection founded in the immanent physical reality,
2.Instinctivity supported by the transcendental illusion.
We shall call "Reification" a factitious attitude
founding intellection in the transcendental illusion.
At first glance it may seem not different from instinctivity,
but second thoughts reveal their essential dissimilarity.
Instinctivity is natural, pragmatic and unreflective, thus
void of intellectual deceit. There is certainly no deceit in
leaping to the side to avoid a bus, or in hammering a nail
in the pragmatic belief that it will drive it into the wall.
Reification, on the contrary, stems from bad faith, in the
best case from auto-deceit, but more often from the intent
to deceive, manipulate and rule social groups.
