What We See

[TheMightyHarihar]

You see what is there, not what is not. You don't have the memory to hold what was not there. It's basically "EVERYTHING- WHAT IS THERE= WHAT IS NOT THERE

[TheMightyHarihar]

The next thing he should look at is how DIFFERENT language affects object recognition and how lack of semantic knowledge affects perception.

[TheMightyHarihar]

mind rape. :D

[mikepousti]

he's a genius!

[2011rhythmdivine]

This is something new. It really got my interested. It might seem so basic but it isn't consciously known.

[HigherPlanes]

This entire presentation is COMMON FREAKING SENSE.

[soultorment27]

@HigherPlanes

Externalism is common sense? Reliabilism is common sense?

[soultorment27]

@HigherPlanes Non-epistemic seeing is common sense?

[somor98]

Knew nothing of Dretske till now. And now see that he's a freakin' genius.

[xpressivist]

TirianB, the answer is because you're ignorant of what he's talking about.lol

[TirianB]

How can a person talk for one hour without saying anything?

[GodlessPhilosopher]

All the properties he mentions are tropes, not universals, and therefore not abstract but spatiotemporally located.

[tokotokotoko3]

I dunno, it feels like he is more playing word games than really revealings something new. The question at the end showed it - IMO he didn't answer it.

If I were for example to blur the brick image - I would not anymore distinguish 350 bricks, but I can still say, that none of them are blue. And I think thats how our vision works - I don't have to check each and every brick to see that there is an exception. I can spot the contrast around the blue brick.

Thus I think his idea is wrong.

[Patzmaschine]

Loved all his books. Now love the man, too.