We replied in 2015 to Jonathan Cohen's claim that (1) we misunderstand representation, (2) we argue for veridical perception of fitness payoffs, and (3) we must specify the contents of perceptions before we can evaluate them for truth or falsity. William Vallicella, racist right-winger (2)Ĭognitive scientist Donald Hoffman (UC Irvine) kindly shared with me his response to the criticisms of philosopher Jonathan Cohen (UC San Diego) I noted in an earlier post about a popular article of Hoffman's at the LARB.Texas Taliban Alerts (Intelligent Design, Religion in the Schools, etc.) (455).Sunday Classical (formerly "Sunday Symphonies") (33).Personal Ads of the Philosophers (and other humor) (731).Merciless rhetorical spankings of fanatics, villains, and ignoramuses (80).Karen Kelsky ("The Professor Is In") (3).Guest Blogger: Thomas Nadelhoffer (103).Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll (315).Deja Vu All Over Again (Repostings of Earlier Items of Interest) (320).Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts (1729)."The less they know, the less they know it" (870).In the second sentence they propose a metric of veridicality: ask how far you think an object is (say in meters) if the results scale linearly with actual distance, then the internal representation of space is good, else it is not. Thus, the experimental results depend not only on the external stimuli (psychophysical method used) but how good we are at estimating the accuracy of the internal representation (criterion of veridicality). In the context of the first sentence, what the authors are saying is: even with the narrow focus, it appears that the accuracy of the internal representation does not improve. Once you have a measure of this (a 'criterion for veridicality') then you can start to think about how the subject cognizes the stimuli. Hence the experimenter needs to explicitly measure the internal representation and try to understand how it acts. However, in many settings (like color perception) the veridicality of the internal representation is low (easiest way to imagine this: think of a difference in internal representation between a color-blind and non-color-blind person). In many cases the veridicality of the internal representation is very good, and the experimenter can focus on just the easy-to-observe external stimuli. Since the work on Humberto Maturana in color perception, it was considered very important to not always focus on the fact that there is some external stimuli to be cognized by the subject and then reacted on, but that instead there is an internal world or representation which is then cognized and responded to. Veridicality is a term used in cognitive science it is the degree to which your internal representation of the world accurately reflects the external world. Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance 18(4), 906-921. (1992) Visual space perception and visually directed action. Loomis JM, da Silva JA, Fujita N, Fukusima SS. What does 'veridicality' mean, and how I should interpret it in this context? I assume this is a psychological term, since the linguistic meaning didn't fit well in my opinion.
I used dictionaries and websites (including Wikipedia) to get a grasp of this concept, however, I found nothing that gave good meaning to this word. One criterion for veridicality is linearity of the function relating perceived egocentric distance to physical distance. In this paper, the word 'veridicality' is used in several sentences.Įven with such a narrowed focus, it is apparent that no consensus on the veridicality of visual space perception exists, for the experimental results depend strongly on both the criterion of veridicality and the psychophysical method used. I'm reading the paper "Visual Space Perception and Visually Directed Action" by Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita and Fukusima (1992 pdf).
0 kommentar(er)
