Cultural Influences on Visual Perception
Leo WaiChung So
Ok. My 0.01 in "Ming Tung" currency. :)
In article <1992Oct5.1...@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.ariz...@arizona.bitnet
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Keep in Mind : "Look ahead, plan ahead, go ahead."
HoiFung JACK @>-`
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?
If u were a baseball player, which umpire would you most prefer to have
referee your game?
Welcome for any kind of answers! :)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * |/ * *
* * /| []T[]_|_ " Deepest and Highest....... " * *
* * | _|_==| * *
* * | / \ | * *
* * /|\\___//|\ HoiFung JACK -'<@ * *
* * * *
* * Email: bi_...@uxmail.ust.hk * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Billy H. Chan
>Okay, now ask you, which of these 3 voices do u agree with most and why?
>If u were a baseball player, which umpire would you most prefer to have
>referee your game?
class? That's what we covered.
The answer is: I see, therefore it is.
:)
How's that for naive?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy H. Chan <bhc...@ocf.berkeley.edu> "Life: a strange new
Just Babbling <bhc...@soda.berkeley.edu> state of confusion"
Disclaimer 1: I'm actually a really nice person. (sorta) :) ;)
William Lo
>
> Ok. My 0.01 in "Ming Tung" currency. :)
Mm, you should take a good look at my next-to-worthless
2 yens worth...
>
>In article <1992Oct5.1...@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:
What the heck...I don't know anything about baseball!
Telling a little more about the rules would've helped...
>> 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.
I agree with the second guy for certain.
>
> 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).
And for the same obvious reason as Leo's. Because of the
fact that something physically true must always be true(we assume
the state of this and the definition of that truth are constantly
held all the time). So, the fact that the Earth is spherical is
true(as is physically observed to be spherical) and must hold true
unless the world has been "reshaped" or the definition of sphere has
been altered.
>
> 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.
Hmmm...
>
> 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
IMHO, in absolute theory, 100% accuracy CAN be achieved having
made a few(?) assumptions, but in reality that hardly exists because
assumptions are not often realistic...
> 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".
I'd prefer the third guy if he shows more favour to our team!
...hahaha...I don't want to be fair...ya know ya know(don't flame)
>
> Here ends my "brick", any "jade" out there?
Errr? Jade? Nah! Certainly not mine! Just catch another
brick OK?
---Cheers,
Bill
<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>
<> Baby Elvis ) Tomorrow's rain will wash <>
<> William W. Lo ( the stains away <>
<> wil...@natimuk.acci.com.au ) But something in our minds <>
<>^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v( will always stay <>
<> Welcome to William's World! ) :"Fragile" Sting <>
<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>*O*<>
Al K Fung
I am not sure your 3 choices covered the entire spectrum of cultures,
especially those of the East. To me the following call is more
representative of the Eastern cultures:
"I call it the way I think is fair!"
For lack of a better term I call it idealistic utilitarianism. This is
baseball a la Japanese :). Easterners seem quite comfortable with it.
However, it drives the Westerners up the wall because they think it is
a rackless disregard for the "truth".
I think all forms of empiricism inevitably lead to subjectivism (as
Hume had demonstrated). Absolutism seems quite incompatible with the
propensity for dualism in the East. Arguably, this curious mixture of
Kantian idealism and the Millian utilitarianism is a form of
constructivism. In either case it probably is no better or worse than
all of the above.
I think the hallmark of us Easterners is our utilitarian orientation.
However, unlike the Benthamites, our summum bonum tends to be a bit
Machiavellian.
Just another brick .... :)
Regards,
Al Fung
SoftFab International Ltd.
One Kendall Square, Suite 2200, Cambridge, MA 02139
E-mail: af...@softfab.com
Voice : (617) 621-7014
Fax : (617) 577-1209