Philosophy Now Forum

Here is an interesting experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBHzfc0KOg
Short video but very revealing, its only 1:35.

What can you infer from this experiment?
Views

What was the, supposed, revelation here?

Have you somehow already arrived at some conclusion?

If yes, then what was that, exactly?

I was waiting for something to happen and felt a bit rushed cause I had to pee!

And once I peed, here's what I figure it might sound like to the kitty who fell down that hole and disappeared.

Warning though, whatever you do, do not let these sounds get into your head! ...and try NEVER play them together by opening them in different tabs while watching your video.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:27 am What can you infer from this experiment?

• 1. That the illusion isn't quite as effective from the cat's perspective as it is from the camera's perspective as presented in the video.
  
  2. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from cat lovers.
  
  3. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from illusion lovers.
  
  4. That Veritas is going to suggest some crazy philosophical theory about reality based on what the cats are doing.
  
  5. That Veritas is going to suggest that what the cats are doing somehow confirms something that Kant said.
  
  6. That us lonely and pitiful philosophical nerds are willing and eager to offer our useless opinions on any subject whatsoever just to help fill the void of our empty and pathetic lives.
  
  7. ...

_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:27 am What can you infer from this experiment?

• 1. That the illusion isn't quite as effective from the cat's perspective as it is from the camera's perspective as presented in the video.
  
  2. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from cat lovers.
  
  3. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from illusion lovers.
  
  4. That Veritas is going to suggest some crazy philosophical theory about reality based on what the cats are doing.
  
  5. That Veritas is going to suggest that what the cats are doing somehow confirms something that Kant said.
  
  6. That us lonely and pitiful philosophical nerds are willing and eager to offer our useless opinions on any subject whatsoever just to help fill the void of our empty and pathetic lives.
  
  7. ...

_______

1. In most optical illusions the effect is the same from all typical angles, i.e. ground, sides or up, e.g. bent stick, etc. Therefore this point is applicable to the cat.

4. Yes. Note Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to be a Bat?"
http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writin ... -be-a-bat/
This experiment somewhat confirms Nagel's view using a cat to prove his point in some ways.
Point is what is objective to humans are not 'objective' to bats, cats and other non-humans.
Thus in terms of species, there are many species-subjective views of objectivity.
So objectivity is fundamentally subjective [intersubjectivity within each species and inter-species].

5. Yes the above will lead to Kant because he covered all the fundamental grounds of philosophy.
This is related to Kant's Copernican Turn where he proposed reality should be viewed from the human perspectives rather than chasing an illusory reality [things] that is independent from all perspectives [humans or otherwise].

6. This is a philosophy forum where the only acceptable currency is valid and sound arguments of ideas. There should be no fuss with that as an imperative conditions of discussions here.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:27 am What can you infer from this experiment?

• 1. That the illusion isn't quite as effective from the cat's perspective as it is from the camera's perspective as presented in the video.
  
  2. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from cat lovers.
  
  3. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from illusion lovers.
  
  4. That Veritas is going to suggest some crazy philosophical theory about reality based on what the cats are doing.
  
  5. That Veritas is going to suggest that what the cats are doing somehow confirms something that Kant said.
  
  6. That us lonely and pitiful philosophical nerds are willing and eager to offer our useless opinions on any subject whatsoever just to help fill the void of our empty and pathetic lives.
  
  7. ...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 1. In most optical illusions the effect is the same from all typical angles, i.e. ground, sides or up, e.g. bent stick, etc. Therefore this point is applicable to the cat.

If the cat was up on the table and leaning against the wall in the following gif, do you think it would see a three dimensional cube?...



Or, if the cat was standing on the street next to the bollards on the right-hand side of the following gif, do you think it would see five bollards?



This is all just speculation on my part, but my point in saying that the illusion that you linked to might not be as effective to the cats is because from their perspective - closer to the floor - they can probably see light reflecting across the surface of the rug (or whatever that thing is), thus showing them that it's not really a hole.

Like the two gifs above, most of these types of optical illusions need to be viewed from some specific angle to get the optimal effect.

Cats aren't dumb, so if it truly looked like something they could fall into, it would have given them "paws" for concern (sorry for the awful pun, but I couldn't help myself).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 6. This is a philosophy forum where the only acceptable currency is valid and sound arguments of ideas.

Great.

We'll be looking forward to the moment when you actually provide some.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 5:43 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:27 am What can you infer from this experiment?

• 1. That the illusion isn't quite as effective from the cat's perspective as it is from the camera's perspective as presented in the video.
  
  2. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from cat lovers.
  
  3. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from illusion lovers.
  
  4. That Veritas is going to suggest some crazy philosophical theory about reality based on what the cats are doing.
  
  5. That Veritas is going to suggest that what the cats are doing somehow confirms something that Kant said.
  
  6. That us lonely and pitiful philosophical nerds are willing and eager to offer our useless opinions on any subject whatsoever just to help fill the void of our empty and pathetic lives.
  
  7. ...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 1. In most optical illusions the effect is the same from all typical angles, i.e. ground, sides or up, e.g. bent stick, etc. Therefore this point is applicable to the cat.

If the cat was up on the table and leaning against the wall in the following gif, do you think it would see a three dimensional cube?...



Or, if the cat was standing on the street next to the bollards on the right-hand side of the following gif, do you think it would see five bollards?



This is all just speculation on my part, but my point in saying that the illusion that you linked to might not be as effective to the cats is because from their perspective - closer to the floor - they can probably see light reflecting across the surface of the rug (or whatever that thing is), thus showing them that it's not really a hole.

Like the two gifs above, most of these types of optical illusions need to be viewed from some specific angle to get the optimal effect.

Cats aren't dumb, so if it truly looked like something they could fall into, it would have given them "paws" for concern (sorry for the awful pun, but I couldn't help myself).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 6. This is a philosophy forum where the only acceptable currency is valid and sound arguments of ideas.

Great.

We'll be looking forward to the moment when you actually provide some.
_______

Note I mentioned 'most'. [you did not read my post thoroughly]

For humans it is only at some extreme angle where the illusory effect is lost.

Note the hollow mask illusion,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M
The effect is immediate once human set their eyes on it.

The cat in this case may not experience the same thing. To be confirmed with an experiment.

The point with the OP experiment is, it does show cats has different perceptions in accordance to their constitutions as cats.

Note frogs perceive anything that moves and wriggles as "real to them" and edible. So if you wriggle something artificial [of right size and shape] in front in front of frogs they will eat it but that is an illusion to the frog.
This is how fisherman used artificial baits/lures to trick the fishes to snap at these lures perceiving them as edible when in reality such lures are deception illusions to the fishes.

Btw, you ran away from the other post re 'God is impossible to be real' where you could only make noises without sound arguments.

Note this;

Which optical illusions can animals see?
Many animals fall for the same optical illusions we do, providing clues about how evolution shapes visual perception.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... n-insights

There may be some illusions that are shared by certain animals but they do not see all the illusions that humans experience as demonstrated in the OP.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:27 am What can you infer from this experiment?

• 1. That the illusion isn't quite as effective from the cat's perspective as it is from the camera's perspective as presented in the video.
  
  2. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from cat lovers.
  
  3. That the creators of the video are hoping to get income generating clicks from illusion lovers.
  
  4. That Veritas is going to suggest some crazy philosophical theory about reality based on what the cats are doing.
  
  5. That Veritas is going to suggest that what the cats are doing somehow confirms something that Kant said.
  
  6. That us lonely and pitiful philosophical nerds are willing and eager to offer our useless opinions on any subject whatsoever just to help fill the void of our empty and pathetic lives.
  
  7. ...

_______

1. In most optical illusions the effect is the same from all typical angles, i.e. ground, sides or up, e.g. bent stick, etc. Therefore this point is applicable to the cat.

Talk about a DISTORTED view of things here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 4. Yes. Note Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to be a Bat?"
http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writin ... -be-a-bat/
This experiment somewhat confirms Nagel's view using a cat to prove his point in some ways.

This, so-called, "experiment" has NOT revealed NOTHING AT ALL, well not like you ASSUME it has.

Tell me what human being would be TRICKED into NOT just walking on that human created pattern, just like the cats did?

And, if you were so FOOLED into NOT walking onto that pattern because you were REALLY TRICKED into BELIEVING that there was some sort of REAL hole there, then what this so-called "experiment" PROVES is that cats have MORE INTELLIGENCE than the human being "veritas aequitas" has.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am Point is what is objective to humans are not 'objective' to bats, cats and other non-humans.

But an optical illusion is NOT 'objective'. It is an ILLUSION, obviously.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am Thus in terms of species, there are many species-subjective views of objectivity.
So objectivity is fundamentally subjective [intersubjectivity within each species and inter-species].

5. Yes the above will lead to Kant because he covered all the fundamental grounds of philosophy.

'you', "veritas aequitas", appear to be MORE religious to "kant", than "christians" are to "christ".

"christians" will also claim their God, "christ", covered ALL the such and such, like; ALL of the fundamental grounds of morality.

By the way, ANY one can cover ALL of the fundamental grounds of 'philosophy'. All they have to do is just say that the fundamental grounds of 'philosophy' is just having a love-of-wisdom. There is NOTHING else to 'cover'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am This is related to Kant's Copernican Turn where he proposed reality should be viewed from the human perspectives rather than chasing an illusory reality [things] that is independent from all perspectives [humans or otherwise].

LOL As if 'you', human beings, would have thee True, Right, and Correct perspective of things, from that very limited, narrowed, and short-sighted vision and field of view.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am 6. This is a philosophy forum where the only acceptable currency is valid and sound arguments of ideas.

And you STILL have NOT provide one YET. Or, if yo have, then I have YET to SEE it. And, if you would like to present an argumen which you BELIEVE or think is sound AND valid, then 'us', readers, would LOVE to SEE it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:42 am There should be no fuss with that as an imperative conditions of discussions here.

There is NO so-called "fuss".

We are just WAITING to SEE one presented.