IF the Hollow-Mask Illusion is Real...

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am sure many people are familiar with the Hollow Mask Illusion where the hollow-mask is always perceived as a real 3D-Convex face. The deception and hollow mask can be verified by empirical inspection i.e. by seeing and feeling the hollowness of the mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Let's assume this qualified scenario.
No one [none of the 8 billion people] in the world is aware of the Hollow Mask Illusion.
A turning hollow mask is presented to all the 8 billion humans and since they are ignorant of the illusion, they will perceive a 'real 3D-convex face'.
In this example, there is no way, the 8 billion humans will ever be informed that what they are seeing is an illusion.
Based only on this visual empirical evidence, the majority of the 8 billion people will insist it is a real 'real 3D-convex face' face.

However there is 0.32% [Link] [~25,800,000] who insist the majority of the 8 billion people are wrong because to them there is only a hollow-mask!
Why? because ..
Schizophrenics see through hollow-mask illusion
Optical Illusion [e.g. Hollow mask] Detects Illness -Schizophrenia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs

In this case, who are the delusional ones?
the normal majority nearly 8 billion people or the 25 million schizophrenia?
The 25 million schizophrenics are perceiving the real things and thus more realistic.

It is the normal majority who claimed what they are perceiving is reality in itself are delusional.

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

Those who claim there is an independent apple-on-the-table out there is absolutely and very real in itself independent of the human condition is delusional, i.e. being ignorant that apple is actually an illusion [like the hollow-mask appearing solid 3D].

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Professor Richard Gregory of the University of Bristol explains how our brains are tricked into seeing an inverted hollow mask as sticking out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YIPtJlCbIA

Transcript, auto from the video:

• "Here is a hollow mask the point is that the nose is actually sticking in instead of out now your brain is simply rejecting it as being hollow because all the faces you've ever seen all through your life have had their noses sticking out
  this one's sticking in that's so unlikely you simply don't see it you can't see it you reject it as a possibility the brain can't cope with something that's very very unlikely
  one of the most interesting things about this is that you are fooled by deluded by it but at the same time you know that you're fooled by it
  
  i mean you can look at the mask put your hand in it touch it and you know jolly well the thing is actually hollow and yet you go on seeing it with no sticking out although you know that it's sticking in
  you've got two awarenesses going here you've got an illusion but your brain knows that you've got an illusion
  yet you can't do anything about it
  but there's no question that we have prejudices we have built-in judgments which partly inherited partly due to our parents uh teachers our early experience and as you go through life you begin to realize that half the things in your head which you believe to be absolutely true are funny daddy and simply wrong
  and the problem is trying to update your brain you're born with an old out-of-date brain through evolution you have to keep updating it all through your life and it's only difficult to keep abreast of changes both in the world around one and in oneself."

This is the point I have been arguing;
all humans are programmed with an evolutionary default of external and mind-independent reality to facilitate survival.
I argue this sense of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things perceived [insisted by philosophical realists] as really real is likely to be an illusion like the above mask-illusion all humans had been deluded with.

Views?

[Iwannaplato]

I don't deny there is an an independent apple-on-the-table out there that can be eaten physically, but it exists as conditioned to the human conditions and never existing in-itself, by itself and alone independently.

Clearly. When my wife wakes up first, see there is no apple on the table in the fruit bowl and before I wake up puts one there from the fridge, it coincidentally appears there later when I wake up and she's out.

Actually apple is only there when she puts it there. Then it's not there. Then when I look it is there. The apple's readiness to be there and not back in the fridge has a magical power over my experiences.

This is parsimony in the 21st century.

[Flannel Jesus]

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.

Seems to me like the example provided is a wonderfully perfect example of realism: most people believe the mask is a certain way, and regardless of their inability to find out they are incorrect, *they are, in fact, incorrect*. Reality is the way it is even if most people are incorrect about it.

It seems like you're arguing for realism with this example, not against it.

[Iwannaplato]

In this case, who are the delusional ones?
the normal majority nearly 8 billion people or the 25 million schizophrenia?
The 25 million schizophrenics are perceiving the real things and thus more realistic.

It is the normal majority who claimed what they are perceiving is reality in itself are delusional.

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.
What they claim [thing-in-itself] driven by common and conventional senses as real is actually an illusion.

I can only hope VA realizes that he has not made an argument here in favor of antirealism.

He mentions a phenomenon where a minority do not see an illusion while the majority sees the illusion or are fooled by it.
There are also situations where minorities are confused by things and the majority is not.

So, we can't draw any conclusion from the example about any other possible example.

Is being a realist like the mask scenario?
Is being a realist like some other scenario where the minority position believers are confused?

No way to tell.

This argument is the equivalent of: I knew a guy who was dumb he hit his head with a hammer. I think of you as like that guy.

IOW it isn't an argument.

VA is showing us his ANALOGY for the situation.

I do appreciate the non-judgmentalness of VA identifying with schizophrenics in his analogy.

[Iwannaplato]

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.

Seems to me like the example provided is a wonderfully perfect example of realism: most people believe the mask is a certain way, and regardless of their inability to find out they are incorrect, *they are, in fact, incorrect*. Reality is the way it is even if most people are incorrect about it.

It seems like you're arguing for realism with this example, not against it.

Oh, nice take. Yes, it presumes that the object is like X. Not how it is perceived. And we can go and look at the object and check what its real shape is.

It's not that it is 3D when the majority looks at it and otherwise when schizophrenics look at it.

No. The object is what it is regardless of observer and this can be verified by physical examination.

Nice catch.

[Atla]

A dumb, solipsistic fuck like VA won't understand that all these issues are evidence for indirect realism, not solipsistic anti-realism.

[Iwannaplato]

After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point;
The above example is to demonstrate, those [Peter Holmes & gang and the likes] who claim there is a thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves independent of the human conditions, are like the above majority who in their confined conditions claim the apparent 'real 3D-convex face'.

Seems to me like the example provided is a wonderfully perfect example of realism: most people believe the mask is a certain way, and regardless of their inability to find out they are incorrect, *they are, in fact, incorrect*. Reality is the way it is even if most people are incorrect about it.

It seems like you're arguing for realism with this example, not against it.

Philosophical Realism claims that reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extreme they exists even if there are no humans.

FJ: Reality is the way it is even if most people are incorrect about it.

How do know what reality exactly is in-itself independent of humans-perceptions, even when most people are correct and incorrect about it?

The point above is, one only see a really real convex mask [mind-independently] out of a concave one when one (as human) set eyes on it.
Suppose you are ignorant of masks and happened to see such a sight at location X i.e. a real mask and no one has informed you there is an illusionary effect.
You will then report to your whole community you saw a real 'convex' at location X and if no verification was done, and being a credible person, it will be an eternal history record of such a reality.

Now in your current reality, you perceive reality in accordance to your psychological status but you are ignorant what you perceive is an illusion in one sense.
ANTI-philosophical_realists are pointing to you are deluded in insisting there is an absolute mind-independent reality and things in a higher sense than common sense.

The point is the hollow-mask illusion is very easy to explain, but your being deluded in insisting there is a real absolute mind-independent reality is tougher for you to grasp because of the powerful evolutionary default and the potential cognitive dissonances if what ANTI-philosophical_realists' claims are true.

My main point is,
How do know what reality exactly is in-itself independent of humans-perceptions?

The hollow mask is one clue to the point that whatever is real cannot be absolutely mind-independent because the illusion occur when humans set their eyes upon it.
Btw, there are tons of other examples that we can use an analogy to show that reality and things cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

[Iwannaplato]

After a nice little exchange with FJ, it seems to me that if VA's antirealism is the case, then
there is no right answer.
If there is no thing in itself,
then both reactions are correct.

There's no mask in itself that we can check to find out who is right.

Both the schizophenics and the majority are correct. I mean, how could they not be?

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

So, you are accepting that both are right?
Otherwise we have competing FSKs. In fact, that's where we are. Competing FSKs. And how could an antirealist say the majority are wrong about the mask. That's assuming a thing in itself.

[Atla]

• “Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time. One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
  ― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

There is no "incoming data" at all according to you, VA.

[promethean75]

"Views?"

Well i think the actual state of the object (mask) despite its continuous heraclitean particle decay is what it is regardless of how it appears to 8 billion normal people or 25 million schizos.

I think you're getting all excited over nothing becuz you're so fuckin smart u get all excited over nothing.

(I think i just committed FDP's favorite fallacy. Watch here he comes...)

[Iwannaplato]

And let's remember:
months back I gave the scenario of a room with a box. Different people enter the room and, in realism, they find the same object in the box.

VA argued that it was not the same object or we couldn't know if it was. Well, if we can't know if it was the same object, then we can't know if it is the same mask/sculpture.

Any attempt to decide and declare that the object is a mask or is 3d is realism. It is attempting to/claiming to find out what is there real object behind the appearances.

And we can head to VA's thread on appearances to find out that those are all that exist.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Views?"

Well i think the actual state of the object (mask) despite its continuous heraclitean particle decay is what it is regardless of how it appears to 8 billion normal people or 25 million schizos.

I think you're getting all excited over nothing becuz you're so fuckin smart u get all excited over nothing.

(I think i just committed FDP's favorite fallacy. Watch here he comes...)

The fallacy of supposing that VA is smart is indeed a terrible sin.