Paradoxes of Motion and Space

Zeno's famous paradoxes of motion and space purport to show that motion is impossible (the arrow never moves) and that reality is not plural (space cannot be divided). In all discussions I have read on these puzzles a similar supposition is made: that points in space and instants in time exist.

Take the case of Achilles catching up with the tortoise. It is supposed that the gap between Achilles and the tortoise can never be closed because once Achilles has reached the point the from where the tortoise started it has moved on. But there is no starting point, halfway point, or point where the tortoise has moved to. Spatial points are approximations, convenient fictions imposed on the continuous fabric of reality by human minds.

In the case of the arrow which is at rest at each instant—there is no single moment of time. Again, the concept of 'instants' in time is a convenient fiction.

(see in this regard the work of Peter Lynds http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/)

Art, Perception and Indeterminacy

Paralysis. Oil on panel, 2005

This article considers the phenomenon of visual indeterminacy, which occurs when the sensory data gathered from the visual system cannot be integrated with semantic knowledge. A number of examples are given, including from the author's own art work, and some results presented from a scientific study based on them.

The implications for the operation of the mind and, in particular, the nature of aesthetic experience are addressed, and the distinction between the perception of visual forms and their cognitive interpretation is discussed. Arguments about the nature of aesthetic experience are then considered from some historical sources and interpreted in light of the distinctions between perception-cognition and form-content.

The paper concludes by summarizing the links between aesthetic experience, the operation of visual perception, and visual indeterminacy.

Read full article at Contemporary Aesthetics...

The Crucial Question

• Do you regard the perceiving mind as distinct from the world it perceives (trees, buildings, hats, etc.)?

• It is evident that the mind and world are not identical since we can imagine things that do not exist in the world (moons made of cheese).

• But if we accept that the mind and world are distinct, precisely at what point can they be separated?

• If you can’t identify at which point they become separated then you may be forced to conclude that they are continuous, effectively united.

• As we give this question more thought we are driven into accepting that the mind is both distinct from and continuous with the world it perceives.

• This in itself does not explain the relationship between the mind and world, but it is the best description we have of it, and if we want ultimately to arrive at an explanation it is preferable to have a better description to work with that a worse one.

• This is not a metaphysical question, or a least not exclusively so. It is a basic, practical problem that requires, and is amenable to, conventional scientific methods of investigation. The conventional scientific method, however, must embrace paradoxes, contradictions and ambiguities as essential components in our descriptions of reality, rather than logical flaws to be eradicated.

• There is a pragmatic imperative to arrive at a useful solution because all other problems relating to mind, consciousness, and reality supervene on this foundational question. Depending on which view you take you will make radically different assumptions and arrive at radically different conclusions.

• The world contains no boundaries other than those imposed on it by the mind.

• The mind cannot be separated from the world — they are identical with one another. So the boundaries apparent to the mind, which is part of the world, are also part of the world.