According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims
that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean. If one sees water in the
desert or on a hot road one simply misinterprets an atmospheric effect
that is actually present. In other words the water is an illusion but
the illusion is not. The illusion itself is real. It has material
antecedents in atmospheric layering which are just misjudged. And this
is what I refer to as a real illusion.

According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
from low to high altitude.

Now what this means is that Glen claims
that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain.

In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion.

My approach to the problem is to attribute the effect to atmospheric
lensing since we're looking through about double the amount of

atmosphere at the horizon as we are directly overhead. In my
experience the moon seems to decrease progressively in size with
altitude but I have no definitive measurements to support this.

So what to make of the NASA photos if they exist as Glen claims? My
reaction is to suggest that we do not see exactly the same way a
camera does.

We have binocular vision with visual mapping methods that
are not the same as film flat in a camera.

The Lunar Paradox

Now Glen dismisses all this contemptuously as irrelevant. As far as he
is concerned the illusory effect is simply not there at all so there
is nothing to be explained. But in order for this to be true there has
to be some reason I and others see the paradoxical effect if it is not
the result of atmospheric lensing or some other comparable effect.

But what I find really peculiar is
the inability and even unwillingness of those who deny the effect to
explain the effect and the origin of what it is they are denying.

The Lunar Paradox

Since Glen prefers to discuss the lunar paradox rather than the
paradoxes of behaviorism I don't see any reason not to respond.

What I observe at moonrise especially in September and November is a
considerably enlarged lunar disc roughly 10% or so at low altitudes
decreasing to normal size at higher altitudes as the moon rises.

Now I am aware that many if not most agree that this represents an
illusion and I don't necessarily disagree. What I disagree with is
whether the illusion is present or not.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean. If one sees water in the
desert or on a hot road one simply misinterprets an atmospheric effect
that is actually present. In other words the water is an illusion but
the illusion is not. The illusion itself is real. It has material
antecedents in atmospheric layering which are just misjudged. And this
is what I refer to as a real illusion.

According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims
that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

My approach to the problem is to attribute the effect to atmospheric
lensing since we're looking through about double the amount of
atmosphere at the horizon as we are directly overhead. In my
experience the moon seems to decrease progressively in size with
altitude but I have no definitive measurements to support this.

So what to make of the NASA photos if they exist as Glen claims? My
reaction is to suggest that we do not see exactly the same way a
camera does. We have binocular vision with visual mapping methods that
are not the same as film flat in a camera. Cameras also do not see
images directly at the film surface. They see it through the barrel
and at whatever distance the front of the lens is from the film.

Now Glen dismisses all this contemptuously as irrelevant. As far as he
is concerned the illusory effect is simply not there at all so there
is nothing to be explained. But in order for this to be true there has
to be some reason I and others see the paradoxical effect if it is not
the result of atmospheric lensing or some other comparable effect.

In behaviorists terms maybe it represents the psycho sexual distortion
of the eye or visual cortex peculiar to observation of moonrise in
September and October. Hard to say. But what I find really peculiar is
the inability and even unwillingness of those who deny the effect to
explain the effect and the origin of what it is they are denying.


Regards - Lester

My approach to the problem is to attribute the effect to atmospheric
lensing since we're looking through about double the amount of
atmosphere at the horizon as we are directly overhead.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:59:54 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims
that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

No, Glen's arguments are based on the fact that the mirage can be
photographed, and the moonrise illusion cannot. The mirage is objectively
there - you are looking at a real image when you see it. The larger moon at
moonrise is not objectively there - you are exaggerating its size when you
see it.

This subjective exaggeration of size is not limited to the apparent size of
the moon at moon rise. The amateur photographer suffers from it too - how
many pictures "didn't come out right" because the snapshooter saw Aunt Maude
as much bigger than she really was in the picture field? Etc.

You know the only problem I find with this explanation is that I don't

in article 3fc7a013.2222299@netnews.att.net, Lester Zick at
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net wrote on 11/28/03 11:59 AM:


The Lunar Paradox

Since Glen prefers to discuss the lunar paradox rather than the
paradoxes of behaviorism I don't see any reason not to respond.

What I observe at moonrise especially in September and November is a
considerably enlarged lunar disc roughly 10% or so at low altitudes
decreasing to normal size at higher altitudes as the moon rises.

Now I am aware that many if not most agree that this represents an
illusion and I don't necessarily disagree. What I disagree with is
whether the illusion is present or not.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean. If one sees water in the
desert or on a hot road one simply misinterprets an atmospheric effect
that is actually present. In other words the water is an illusion but
the illusion is not. The illusion itself is real. It has material
antecedents in atmospheric layering which are just misjudged. And this
is what I refer to as a real illusion.

According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc
from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims
that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

My approach to the problem is to attribute the effect to atmospheric
lensing since we're looking through about double the amount of
atmosphere at the horizon as we are directly overhead. In my
experience the moon seems to decrease progressively in size with
altitude but I have no definitive measurements to support this.

So what to make of the NASA photos if they exist as Glen claims? My
reaction is to suggest that we do not see exactly the same way a
camera does. We have binocular vision with visual mapping methods that
are not the same as film flat in a camera. Cameras also do not see
images directly at the film surface. They see it through the barrel
and at whatever distance the front of the lens is from the film.

Now Glen dismisses all this contemptuously as irrelevant. As far as he
is concerned the illusory effect is simply not there at all so there
is nothing to be explained. But in order for this to be true there has
to be some reason I and others see the paradoxical effect if it is not
the result of atmospheric lensing or some other comparable effect.

In behaviorists terms maybe it represents the psycho sexual distortion
of the eye or visual cortex peculiar to observation of moonrise in
September and October. Hard to say. But what I find really peculiar is
the inability and even unwillingness of those who deny the effect to
explain the effect and the origin of what it is they are denying.


Regards - Lester


Quote:

Systematic misrepresentation of the distance to an object is also an
integral part of the most influential explanation for perhaps the oldest of
all visual illusions: the moon illusion. The moon illusion is the universal
perception of the moon as being larger when it is located low in the sky
(near the horizon) than when it is high in the night sky. This illusion is
powerful and pervasive, but it has puzzled scientists from ancient times.
Indeed, most people never suspect that it results from an error in
perception at all, but assume that there must be a physical explanation for
it. Although most people realize that the moon does not actually get smaller
as it rises in the sky, many people assume that it appears to do so either
because it is getting farther away or because there is some sort of optical
distortion caused by the earth's atmosphere. The explanation for this
gross misperception of the moon's size must therefore be sought in how the
situation is perceived.

According to the most widely accepted theory, the moon illusion is caused by
an error in distance perception. This apparent distance theory, originaly
proposed in antiquity by Ptolemy and more recently championed by Lloyd
Kaufman and Irvin Rock (1962; Rock & Kaufman, 1962), sugggests that the moon
looks bigger near the horizon because it is perceived as farther away...

Although the apparent distance theory has a great deal of experimental
support, it is by no means universaly accepted. An entire book was recently
published about the moon illusion, in which the authors of numerous chapters
advanced many different theories (Hershenson, 1989). The correct explanation
of the moon illusion is still far from settled, although the apparent
distance theory has been the favorite for many years.

-- Stephen Palmer, (2002) "Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology" MIT
Press.

You know, Michael, I have to thank you for providing a very lucid

"Lester Zick" wrote

The Lunar Paradox

[...]

Now Glen dismisses all this contemptuously as irrelevant. As far as he
is concerned the illusory effect is simply not there at all so there
is nothing to be explained. But in order for this to be true there has
to be some reason I and others see the paradoxical effect if it is not
the result of atmospheric lensing or some other comparable effect.

What is happening is the moon is being integrated into the visual
plane of the horizon. The image of the moon as an object you're
looking at is literally moved forward.

Take a quarter and hold it at arms length and then move it halfway
toward you while focusing on some background object (you will
probably have to close one eye to get both the quarter and back-
ground in focus). The quarter doubles in size in relation to the
background. This is what happens in the lunar illusion, only with
the moon instead of the quarter.

The fact that we can do this is related to size constancy; our
visual apparatus seems more concerned with keeping the size of
objects constant regardless of the size of the image on the retina
than it does in rendering a true presentation of the light that enters
our eyes (trust me, you wouldn't want one). It follows from this
that it can monkey around with size and other things almost at
will:

http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/ugadmit/cogsci/percept/pages/percon.htm

This also makes the visual volume of space around us non-
Euclidian, which is a strong argument in favor of representational
realism (we perceive the world through representations in our
brains.)

But what I find really peculiar is
the inability and even unwillingness of those who deny the effect to
explain the effect and the origin of what it is they are denying.

I believe it's mostly semantical. The exact status of the distinctions
our perceptual systems make can vary from all of reality to non-
existent depending on who you talk to, yet we all perceive more
or less the same things.

I view things such as colors as information processed by our
brains, but there are obviously no colors in the brain that
corresponds to them (a neuron doesn't turn red when I view a red
spot). Also, while neurons do fire in patterns that are somewhat
similar to what we perceive as shape, how the size is coded isn't
quite known. A bigger moon might have more neurons firing, but
it's the subjectiveness of the one doing the perceiving that counts
as experience, not a neuron-by-neuron description of my brain
activity.

--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:00:35 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
wwolfkir@sympatico.can> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:59:54 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:


According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc

from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims

that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

No, Glen's arguments are based on the fact that the mirage can be
photographed, and the moonrise illusion cannot. The mirage is objectively
there - you are looking at a real image when you see it. The larger moon at
moonrise is not objectively there - you are exaggerating its size when you
see it.


Well at least this is a reasonable approach to the problem. It might
be an exaggerated interpretive effect.

This subjective exaggeration of size is not limited to the apparent size of
the moon at moon rise. The amateur photographer suffers from it too - how
many pictures "didn't come out right" because the snapshooter saw Aunt Maude
as much bigger than she really was in the picture field? Etc.


You know the only problem I find with this explanation is that I don't
seem to be able to compensate for the interpretive visual effect. It
doesn't matter how many times I look at it or under what conditions it
still comes out the same way.

Lester Zick wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:00:35 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
wwolfkir@sympatico.can> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:59:54 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:


According to Glen there are NASA photos taken throughout the course of
moonrise which show no apparent change in the size of the lunar disc

from low to high altitude. Now what this means is that Glen claims

that there is no illusion present, that what I see is simply not there
and presumably that there is nothing to explain. In other words on the
evidence Glen claims the illusion is simply not real because camera
photographs do not show it.

The problem I have with this explanation is that it denies the reality
of the illusion in order to explain the illusion. Now I don't mind if
the effect turns out to be an illusion but I do mind if the effect is
not present at all - which is what Glen's arguments amount to.

No, Glen's arguments are based on the fact that the mirage can be
photographed, and the moonrise illusion cannot. The mirage is objectively
there - you are looking at a real image when you see it. The larger moon at
moonrise is not objectively there - you are exaggerating its size when you
see it.


Well at least this is a reasonable approach to the problem. It might
be an exaggerated interpretive effect.

This subjective exaggeration of size is not limited to the apparent size of
the moon at moon rise. The amateur photographer suffers from it too - how
many pictures "didn't come out right" because the snapshooter saw Aunt Maude
as much bigger than she really was in the picture field? Etc.


You know the only problem I find with this explanation is that I don't
seem to be able to compensate for the interpretive visual effect. It
doesn't matter how many times I look at it or under what conditions it
still comes out the same way.

Have you tried brain surgury?

Just what sort of "compensation" do you expect to be able to perform?
Such effects aren't under conscious control.

And you know this how? KMA & AMF.

"Craig Franck" in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Take a quarter and hold it at arms length and then move it halfway
toward you while focusing on some background object (you will
probably have to close one eye to get both the quarter and back-
ground in focus). The quarter doubles in size in relation to the
background. This is what happens in the lunar illusion, only with
the moon instead of the quarter.

But why wouldn't one expect the size of the quarter to double? That
doesn't strike me as an illusion.

"Lester Zick" wrote

"Craig Franck" in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Take a quarter and hold it at arms length and then move it halfway
toward you while focusing on some background object (you will
probably have to close one eye to get both the quarter and back-
ground in focus). The quarter doubles in size in relation to the
background. This is what happens in the lunar illusion, only with
the moon instead of the quarter.

But why wouldn't one expect the size of the quarter to double? That
doesn't strike me as an illusion.

True, but when the moon does it, it does strike you as an
illusion. My point was the illusion is caused by the moon
being place at the same distance from you as objects near
the horizon.

There may be some truth to this. But certainly the moon cannot be

It could be an argument for free will, since the only real thing occurring is how the person reacts to the sight of the Moon. The
person is forced to choose how to feel (although he is unaware that he is choosing).

Then again, probably not... more likely the natural association to relate nearby objects in the visual field (moon, tree, house) as
being similar in distance to the viewer.

Hi Ray - I think I would agree that the illusion is an argument for