"Magic Buffalo" and Berkeley's Theory of Vision : Learning in Society

Abstract

to distinguish between the pair m1,d1 and the pair m2,d2 when m^d 1 = m2/d2 ? How do we distinguish big objects at a distance from small objects up close? The evidence Berkeley provides for this thesis is ofa funny sort. He gives examples that we do, in fact, distinguishlarge distant objects from small near objects. Since the arctan of the pair m1, d 1 is by hypothesisthesameasthatofthepairm2, d 2thenrecognizingdistance mustbealearned abihty. We cannotextractd and mfrom ? alone. The properinterpretation ofBerkeley's philosophy ofscienceisamatter of considerable debate.1 Nonetheless, as a working theorist of visual perceptionheisafairlysimple-mindedfalsificationist. Hereiswhathe says: find a person born blind who comes by surgery to see. If that person can distinguish at a glance big distant objects from small near objects, 111 amend my theory.2 The literature on Berkeley's TheoryofVision can be fairly said to bifurcate between those who see the argument and those who don't. Berkeley's most important eighteenth century disciple, Adam Smith, extended Berkeley's teaching toencompasstheremarkable claim that we learn to perceive our economic interest (Levy 1992a, 1992b). The negative reaction to Berkeley's theory starts in 1842 with Samuel Bailey who pronounced himself mystified by the very claim that we learn to perceive distance. The debate betweenBaileyandJohn Stuart Mill, a debate which has twentieth century counterparts, has all the characteristics ofpeople talking past each other.