Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld writes: ¶24. “Needless to say, in certain contexts of ordinary discourse, the general question that seems to motivate Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s (HSP) endeavour, namely whether perception mirrors the ‘true structure of the objective world,’ can be a meaningful and sensible one.
Such a question, however, will hardly survive the transition into a natural science context. It rather seems that no question remains that can be posed in a coherent and intelligible way.
Hence, the appropriate response to such a question is not to evaluate specific proposals but rather to dispel the delusion that an intelligible question has been raised. …”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While researching the book “Case Against Reality” I came to recognize the name “Rainer Mausfeld” because he was referenced in various articles. However, it wasn’t until working on the paper “Objects of Consciousness,” that I sat down to read his critique of Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s Psychonomic Review and Bulletin 2015 paper and it felt like a cosmic giggle.
“Notions such as ‘truth’ or ‘correspondence to the objective world’ play no role in explanatory accounts of perception” Rainer Mausfeld -
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (v22, p1535–1540. Sep 18, 2015)
I’m glad my discovery waited for the end of this journey. Had I read it a half year ago, I might not have engaged in this effort to begin with and that would have been a shame. Not that it’s been fun, but because it has been well worth the effort. My payoff has been a deeper appreciation for the scientific and philosophical mind/body debate, along with helping me better define my own curious perspective. At least that’s my impression. My next essays will put the conceit to the test. You’ll get to decide for yourselves.
In any event, for a lifelong student of such things, it’s gratifying to see my homegrown naïve understanding echoing a genuine expert’s learned appraisal.
I received an okay from Springer to reproduce 800 words worth of highlights from the 4,700 word long paper, all it was going to cost me was $360. If I were earning money with any of this, I’d have a budget for such expenses, but alas, no can do.
After much consideration, including reading through H.G. Zaharoff’s ‘Guide to Fair Use’ (You can find more on that at the end of this post.), I’m declaring Fair Use and am going ahead and sharing interesting quotes from Mausfeld’s work as a teaser, an invitation to serious students.
For all who are searching for a deeper realistic appreciation of the mind, physical reality divide, you don’t want to miss reading Mausfeld's complete 7400 words. Don’t be intimidated, Mausfeld writes about these arcane details with refreshing clarity. Meaning his writing is accessible to intelligent curious non-academics. Check it out for yourself:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Notions such as “truth” or “correspondence to the objective world” play no role in explanatory accounts of perception”
Prof. Dr. Rainer Mausfeld, University of Kiel
Publications available online at Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - Springer, DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0763-6
volume 22, pages1535–1540(2015) - September 18, 2015
¶01. Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash (Psychonomic Review and Bulletin, 2015, in press) intend to show that perceptions are evolutionarily tuned to fitness rather than to truth.
I argue, partly in accordance with their objective, that issues of ‘truth’ or ‘veridicality’ have no place in explanatory accounts of perception theory, and rather belong to either ordinary discourse or to philosophy.
I regard, however, their general presumption that the evolutionary development of core achievements of the human perceptual system would be primarily determined by aspects of fitness and adaption as unwarranted in light of the evidence available.
