“Perception and Skepticism: From Eden to the Matrix”

Eden model- primitiveness (primitive red, etc) “Fall” - objects don't have primitive color qualities (See Kathleen's plen) - surface reflectances are identified as the color Ordinary color id'd with physical causes of color perception

Imperfect colors are the norm; imperfect veridicality

Block's inverted earths reveals the imperfection - in that the edenic primitives separate from their physical causes

“After the fall, we have a structural, not a categorical grasp of the roles colors play”

From primitivism -> functionalism in color concepts

Primitivism is skeptically subsceptible to the “illusory” challenge, but on functionalism isn't as coherent

T: what holds for color holds for spatial perception

Eden: “perfect Euclidean distances, squares, whatnot

Fall: (relativity, qm) - no longer spatial properties, just imperfect properties which play their role

Relativity: no absolutes, just reference frames QM: 3d space no longer a primitive, but arising derivatively

No Transparent grasp of spatial properties - Left vs. right, absolute size, shape etc “Spatial twin earth cases”

Oscar and water - h2o vs xyz; red and reflectances 1 vs 2 -- “Twin-earthable”

So water and red are not Transparent - a functional / phenomenal duplicate can use a corresponding term with a different referent (opaqueness-known only by roles they play)

We can do the same with spatial properties- Left - right : “inverting contact lenses, inverted motor effectors” - twin-earthable

Doubled earth - size x2 (Like futurama universe 10 meters lower than first)

Lorentz contractions - at .87 c, contraction in direction of travel by 2 (again, relative to reference frame)

“Lorentz earth” - compressed albert's square becomes Albert's rectangle

So “square” is also twin-earthable

  • So what isn't twin-earthable?

Suggests spatial functionalism - we refer to spatial properties in terms of the roles they play.

Yet we have a phenomenology of absolute shapes!

QM: supports further the functionalism of spatial experience

  • q - is the ordinality of space, time, etc still primitive?

Thus, illusory charge not coherent on spatial grounds

Cartesian skepticism tied to spatial primitivism

Spatial functionalism on the matrix, shows spatial experience veridicality iff they have objects with virtual squareness

After Galileo, red is reflectances After Einstein, square is relative After Matrix, square is virtual

Obj: Spatial primitivism is the correct view - but this has been falsified, so we needn't be skeptics, but “error theorists”

Obj: given spatial functionalism, there will be further constraints, so “square” wouldn't be a virtual property

-- but what are the constraints?

Obj: still skepticism (envatment hypotheses)

-- doesn't let us rule out som hallucinations

Transparent grasp implies possibility of illusion- but the lack of transparency suggests the reverse, and this serves as a structuralist response

Q: ordinality is virtualizable If it's not twin-earthable,