C:\B\CONFER~1\Origins\n\optical paradox note 11 28 2000.wpd November 28, 2000 (11:03AM)

Optical paradox notes, describing my reconstruction of the position of Brentano, comment on Psychology of senses book

- The general task to show: space is presupposed to be a precondition for illusion to appear. Show that this thesis is right. It is to be proved that space is important for an explanation of illusion.

- This is an elastic space.

- The importance of judgement. But this judgement is appearing at the level of sensations, not at the level of the higher cognition.

- The difference between the objective and between the experiential is crucial. The estimation of angles seems to be a psychological phenomenon.

- The law referred to: "There is a tendency to overestimate the small angles and to underestimate the big angles". I.e., there is reference to estimating here, which is a psychological fact.

- Hypothesis: Defending this thesis that rests on the difference between the estimation of angles, which is a psychological phenomenon in counterdistinction to just objective relations - requires to reject the views that only underline the importance of the objective, without stressing this crucial difference between the objective relations and between psychological relations. See wether this is a fact, i.e. that the opposition does not recognize the crucial difference between the objective and the experiential-psychological.

- So, there are two tasks: First, show that there is intentionality of the consciousness or of the sensory, by showing that the existence of elastic space is presupposition of the illusion. This is experiential space. The judgement in this experiential space is different to the judgement at the level of the full fledged psychological.

Then show that the opposition did not take the experiential space, and thus did not take the intentionality of the conscious as an important or viable hypothesis.

- There is difference between the judgmental power at the level of sensations and between judgmental power at the higher cognitive level. The difference may be (a hypothesis:) that there is a substantial intentionality going on at the level of the sensory, an intentionality that is even much more profiled as the intentionality of the higher cognitive level (such as thoughts, emotional judgements). So in matter of intentionality or directedness, the main task may go on at the level of sensations. Whereas the intentional object may be presupposed at the higher cognition level, and so a natural task to demonstrate there would be to stress the importance of the intrinsic consciousness of the intentional acts directedness in the experiential space.

Judgement about the relations (p. 120).

- The space is elastic. Question how far one can go in bringing the movement, kinesthesis into the picture. The overall complexity of relations, rootedness of the psychological in the experiential space. Space is always there, as psychological experiential space.

- The variation of positions of illusion in space. Look at all of them and think about them as connected. You obtain the feeling that space is really elastic: the experiential space in which illusion is produced. Although you have to acknowledge that variation of examples of the optic paradox (not: illusion?) is due to the objections being answered by variation of examples.

- One main point: intentionality thesis is supported by psychological experiments related to the level of the sensory.

- The relation between sensory and higher cognitive remained central. See how positions of others (Meinong, Husserl) are close or away of this.

- The importance of the phenomenology of illusion: what it shows is that there is this difference between the objective geometrical and between the experiential or conscious apprehension. If one takes de se (second intention) seriously, then the experiential is a more real phenomenon as the objective geometrical.

- Another fact: illusion persists, even if it is rationally explained.

- Get hold at the optic illusion through the application of varying and not to be mutually satisfiable standards. There are standards in conflict: standards of the objective geometric space, and standards of the experiential elastic space. Standards of the elastic experiential space are incompatible with standards of geometric static measurable space.

- Once you acknowledge this conflict of standards engendering the phenomenon, you may see how close it is to other illusions, such as sorites.

- Transvaluationist explanation of sorites: there is this incompatibility of individualistic and collectivistic standards. Compare that in optical paradox, there is incompatibility between objective and experiential standards. This involves two conceptions of space: the objectively measurable space, and the experiential space. The incompatibility of standards introducing each of these spaces engenders optical paradox.

- The persistence of the illusion: even if the optical paradox is explained, it does not go away. One may ask what is more real here: the objective or the experiential space? A possibility: the question is misguided. Another possibility: give its importance to the experiential space dominating the objective geometrical space. An exercise or homework assignment: show how this dominance is demonstrated by the main principle used in explanation of the optic paradox, and how graphic examples given illustrate the point. (Start by this hypothesis.) Practical remark: just start drawing each of the pictures and present them to the classes. Then discuss what may be the cause of the paradox, trying to show that the experiential elastic space (zero-point curved space) influences the solution.

- Relate this to some standard main illusions in philosophy, caused by too high requirements put on the opposite poles: freedom/determinism. Illusions persist. There is a natural tendency of raising the standards. This engenders illusions which try to get rid of the low-grade realistic view of phenomena. Tendency to push towards high standards. Take then optical paradox and show how similarly in its case there is tendency to push towards higher standards. What would be higher standards in such a case? The main idea for freedom/determinism: opulent high standards push into the high-grade direction for each of the opposite poles.

- The experiential elastic space is not compatible with the objective measurable space.

- Veridicality of perception, but there are some illusions (?).

November 29, 2000 (10:11AM)

- Internal psychophysics.

PES

- Intentionality thesis: empirical verification. What about the sensory?

- The hypothesis here: sensory (consciousness) is intentional.

- Look at Space time continuum to see what is spatial. Continuum: one sort of it is from physiology to all the rest of levels till it reaches presentations and emotions. Another sort of continuum is elastic space content trajectory.

- Physiology: JND. / Psychology: relations between JND's.

- Vienna circle: intentionality of consciousness, consciousness of intentionality.

p. 53 Inner perception, not inner observation (this last one is only external).

p. 73 Sensations are the basis of alll psychical phenomena. Physiology of sensory organs helps psychology.

Nonreductionism: vs. reduction of psychological to physiology. Vs. metaphysics.

p. 99 Psychological method: the inexactness of its highest laws (ceteris paribus). I.e., laws with exceptions.

p. 119 Emotion based on presentation: presentation of spatial determination, with which relation to some viewed or touched part of our body is meant.

Local determination presentation: internal to us.

- Kinesthesis tackled on in PES III, shortly.

- p. 122 pain (bodily, physiological) / sensation of pain (experiential)

- p. 122, &4: Objection that physical phenomena are localized, but not psychological phenomena.

B has later reply to this, because for him psychological phenomena are localized.

BiV has location, rich!

- p. 130 - real existence of desire, happiness

- only intentional and phenomenal existence of color, tones, warmth

Seems that inner perception itself requires a space.

- p. 136: "psychical phenomena non-localized": but this is only a temporarily determination against physical. The relation is eventually turned round later.

Intentional internal existence: mark of psychological.

- p. 138 extension: spatial, temporal

- p. 141 consciousness = psychic act -> the object we're conscious of.

Psychology of senses

- p. 136 Small edges overappreciated, big (wide) edges underapreciated.

What is it to appreciate? It is to take a kind of psychological attitude towards something.

- p. 142 The principle of estimation of angles.

Optical paradox is important because it takes the inner space of experience to be in its principled basis.

- There are distances: objective, measurable fact.

- But there is the tendency to experience small edges as overappreciated and big angles as underappreciated:

- The space of experience is elastic.