Message from discussion Cultural Influences on Visual Perception

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!ukma!wupost!usc!news.service.uci.edu!cerritos.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!leoso
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: Cultural Influences on Visual Perception
Message-ID: <23425@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
From: le...@cs.arizona.edu (Leo WaiChung So)
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:29:09 GMT
Sender: n...@cs.arizona.edu
References: <1992Oct5.191805.14326@uxmail.ust.hk>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 59


  Ok. My 0.01 in "Ming Tung" currency. :)

In article <1992Oct5.191805.14...@uxmail.ust.hk> 
bi_...@uxmail.ust.hk (HoiFung JACK @>-`) writes:
>
>Firstly, let us listen to the voices of three different umpires as they
>describe how they call "strikes" (the ball was in the strike zone)
>and "balls" (the ball was outside the strike zone) in their work:
>	The first umpire says, "I call them as I see them."
>	The second umpire says, "I call them as they are."
>	The third umpire says, "They are nothing until I call them."
>These 3 voices represent 3 different philosophical views on how humans
>perceive and experience the physical world.  The first is the voice of 
>empiricism, the notion that thr' direct observation and experience, human
>beings can accurately know the phyiscal world.  The second is the voice
>of naive realism or phenomenal absolutism, the assumption that the physical
>world is exactly as it appears, existing quite independently of what
>humans think about it.  The third is the voice of constructivism, the idea
>that physical reality does not exist independently of the human observer,
>who creates it.
>
>Okay, now ask you, which of these 3 voices do u agree with most and why?

  I would agree with the second umpire / view.

  Our physical world is just "there". i.e. "ball" or "strike" 
  is already having its underlying truth value as the ball is 
  flying towards the striker. True if within the strike area 
  of X times Y. Otherwise false. That's it.  It's truth value 
  has nothing to do with its observer. So the second umpire
  is quite a humble observer of our real game (assume he tell
  us the truth).

  The third one is obviously wrong. One creates something doesn't
  imply he has the right to interpret it. In our case, he is 
  quite ignorant and snobbish.

  The first one, hmm ... I just remember I learned a "Uncertainty
  Principle" in secondary school which state that you can never
  make 100% correct measurement (correct me if wrong). So this 
  view is not valid if we believe in this principle.

>If u were a baseball player, which umpire would you most prefer to have
>referee your game?

  Anyone but the third one. This kind of view make me think of
  some subborn referee/umpire who insists on their judgement
  by exercising their so-called "authority".

  Here ends my "brick", any "jade" out there?

  Cheers,
  leo.
--
  Leo WaiChung So               Internet : le...@cs.arizona.edu
  Department of Computer Science    UUCP : uunet!arizona!leoso
  University of Arizona           Bitnet : leoso%cs.arizona....@arizona.bitnet
  Tucson, AZ 85721, USA     Keep in Mind : "Look ahead, plan ahead, go ahead."