An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision by George Berkeley (highly illogical behavior TXT) π
11. Now from sect. 2 it is plain that distance is in its own natureimperceptible, and yet it is perceived by sight. It remains, therefore,that it be brought into view by means of some other IDEA that is itselfimmediately perceived in the act of VISION.
12. But those LINES and ANGLES, by means whereof some MATHEMATICIANSpretend to explain the perception of distance, are themselves not at allperceived, nor are they in truth ever thought of by those unskilful inoptics. I appeal to anyone's experience whether upon sight of an OBJECT hecomputes its distance by the bigness of the ANGLE made by the meeting ofthe two OPTIC AXES? Or whether he ever thinks of the greater or lesserdivergency of the rays, which arrive from any point to his PUPIL? Everyoneis himself the best judge of what he perceives, and what not. in vainshall all the M
Read free book Β«An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision by George Berkeley (highly illogical behavior TXT) πΒ» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
- Author: George Berkeley
- Performer: -
Read book online Β«An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision by George Berkeley (highly illogical behavior TXT) πΒ». Author - George Berkeley
The Project Gutenberg Etext of An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision by George Berkeley
#1 in our series by George Berkeley
Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this or any other Project Gutenberg file.
We encourage you to keep this file, exactly as it is, on your own disk, thereby keeping an electronic path open for future readers.
Please do not remove this.
This header should be the first thing seen when anyone starts to view the etext. Do not change or edit it without written permission.
The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the information they need to understand what they may and may not do with the etext.
To encourage this, we have moved most of the information to the end, rather than having it all here at the beginning.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These Etexts Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get etexts, and further information, is included below. We need your donations.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN [Employee Identification Number] 64-6221541
Find out about how to make a donation at the bottom of this file.
Title: An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision Author: George Berkeley
Release Date: December, 2003 [Etext #4722]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on March 7, 2002]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
The Project Gutenberg Etext of An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision by George Berkeley
This file should be named trvsn10.txt or trvsn10.zip Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, trvsn11.txt VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, trvsn10a.txt Prepared by Col Choat [email protected] Project Gutenberg Etexts are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not keep etexts in compliance with any particular paper edition.
The βlegal small printβ and other information about this book may now be found at the end of this file. Please read this important information, as it gives you specific rights and tells you about restrictions in how the file may be used.
An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision
by George Berkeley (1685-1753)
CONTENTS
Sect.
1 Design
2 Distance of itself invisible3 Remote distance perceived rather by experience than by sense 4 Near distance thought to be perceived by the ANGLE of the OPTIC AXES
5 Difference between this and the former manner of perceiving distance 6 Also by diverging rays
7 This depends not on experience8 These the common accounts, but not satisfactory 9 Some IDEAS perceived by the mediation of others 10 No IDEA which is not itself perceived, can be the means of perceiving another
11 Distance perceived by means of some other IDEA 12 Those lines and angles mentioned in optics, are not themselves perceived
13 Hence the mind does not perceive distance by lines and angles 14 Also because they have no real existence 15 And because they are insufficient to explain the phenomena 16 The IDEAS that suggest distance are, 1st, the sensation arising from the turn of the eyes
17 Betwixt which and distance there is no necessary connection 18 Scarce room for mistake in this matter 19 No regard had to the angle of the OPTIC AXES
20 Judgment of distance made with both eyes, the result of EXPERIENCE
21 2ndly, Confusedness of appearance
22 This the occasion of those judgments attributed to diverging rays 23 Objection answered
24 What deceives the writers of optics in this matter 25 The cause why one IDEA may suggest another 26 This applied to confusion and distance 27 Thirrdly, the straining of the eye
28 The occasions which suggest distance have in their own nature no relation to it
29 A difficult case proposed by Dr. Barrow as repugnant to all the known theories
30 This case contradicts a received principle in catoptrics 31 It is shown to agree with the principles we have laid down 32 This phenomenon illustrated
33 It confirms the truth of the principle whereby it is explained 34 Vision when distinct, and when confused 35 The different effects of parallel diverging and converging rays 36 How converging and diverging rays come to suggest the same distance 37 A person extreme purblind would judge aright in the forementioned case
38 Lines and angles, why useful in optics 39 The not understanding this, a cause of mistake 40 A query proposed, by Mr. Molyneux in his DIOPTRICS, considered 41 One born blind would not at first have any IDEA of distance by sight 42 This not agreeable to the common principles 43 The proper objects of sight, not without the mind, nor the images of any thing without the mind
44 This more fully explained45 In what sense we must be understood to see distance and external things
46 Distance, and things placed at a distance, not otherwise perceived by the eye than by the ear
47 The IDEAS of sight more apt to be confounded with the IDEAS of touch than those of hearing are
48 How this comes to pass49 Strictly speaking, we never see and feel the same thing 50 Objects of SIGHT twofold, mediate and immediate 51 These hard to separate in our thoughts 52 The received accounts of our perceiving magnitude by sight, false 53 Magnitude perceived as immediately as distance 54 Two kinds of sensible extension, neither of which is infinitely divisible
55 The tangible magnitude of an OBJECT steady, the visible not 56 By what means tangible magnitude is perceived by sight 57 This further enlarged on
58 No necessary connection between confusion or faintness of appearance, and small or great magnitude 59 The tangible magnitude of an OBJECT more heeded than the visible, and why
60 An instance of this61 Men do not measure by visible feet or inches 62 No necessary connection between visible and tangible extension 63 Greater visible magnitude might signify lesser tangible magnitude 64 The judgments we make of magnitude depend altogether on experience 65 Distance and magnitude seen as shame or anger 66 But we are prone to think otherwise, and why 67 The moon seems greater in the horizon than in the meridian 68 The cause of this phenomenon assigned 69 The horizontal moon, why greater at one time than another.
70 The account we have given proved to be true 71 And confirmed by the moonβs appearing greater in a mist 72 Objection answered
73 The way wherein faintness suggests greater magnitude illustrated 74 Appearance of the horizontal moon, why thought difficult to explain 75 Attempts towards the solution of it made by several, but in vain 76 The opinion of Dr. Wallis
77 It is shown to be unsatisfactory
78 How lines and angles may be of use in computing apparent magnitudes 79 One born blind, being made to see, what judgment he would make of magnitude
80 The MINIMUM VISIBLE the same to all creatures 81 Objection answered
82 The eye at all times perceives the same number of visible points 83 Two imperfections in the VISIVE FACULTY
84 Answering to which, we may conceive two perfections 85 In neither of these two ways do microscopes improve the sight 86 The case of microscopical eyes, considered 87 The sight, admirably adapted to the ends of seeing 88 Difficulty concerning erect vision
89 The common way of explaining it
90 The same shown to be false
91 Not distinguishing between IDEAS of sight and touch, cause of mistake in this matter
92 The case of one born blind, proper to be considered 93 Such a one might by touch attain to have IDEAS of UPPER and LOWER
94 Which modes of situation he would attribute only to things tangible 95 He would not at first sight think anything he saw, high or low, erect or inverted
96 This illustrated by an example97 By what means he would come to denominate visible OBJECTS, high or low, etc.
98 Why he should think those OBJECTS highest, which are painted on the lowest part of his eye, and VICE VERSA 99 How he would perceive by sight, the situation of external objects 100 Our propension to think the contrary, no argument against what has been said
101 Objection
102 Answer103 An object could not be known at first sight by the colour 104 Nor by the magnitude thereof
105 Nor by the figure106 In the first act of vision, no tangible thing would be suggested by sight
107 Difficulty proposed concerning number 108 Number of things visible, would not at first sight suggest the like number of things tangible
109 Number the creature of the mind
110 One born blind would not at first sight number visible things as others do
111 The situation of any object determined with respect only to objects of the same sense
112 No distance, great or small, between a visible and tangible thing 113 The not observing this, cause of difficulty in erect vision 114 Which otherwise includes nothing unaccountable 115 What is meant by the picture being inverted 116 Cause of mistake in this matter
117 Images in the eye, not pictures of external objects 118 In what sense they are pictures
119 In this affair we must carefully distinguish between ideas of sight and touch
120 Difficult to explain by words the true Theory of Vision 121 The question, whether there is any IDEA common to sight and touch, stated
122 Abstract extension inquired into
123 It is incomprehensible124 Abstract extension not the OBJECT of geometry 125 The general IDEA of a triangle, considered 126 Vacuum, or pure space, not common to sight and touch 127 There is no idea, or kind of idea, common to both senses 128 First argument in proof hereof
129 Second argument130 Visible figure and extension, not distinct IDEAS from colour 131 Third argument
132 Confirmation drawn from Mr. Molyneuxβs problem of a sphere and a cube, published by Mr. Locke
133 Which is falsely solved, if the common supposition be true 134 More might be said in proof of our tenet, but this suffices 135 Further reflection on the foregoing problem 136 The same thing doth not affect both sight and touch 137 The same idea of motion not common to sight and touch 138 The way wherein we apprehend motion by sight, easily collected from what hath been said
139 QU. How visible and tangible IDEAS came to have the same name if not of the same kind
140 This accounted for without supposing them of the same kind 141 OBJ. That a tangible square is liker to a visible square than to a visible circle
142 ANS. That a visible square is fitter than a visible circle, to represent a tangible square
143 But it doth not hence follow, that a visible square is like a tangible square
144 Why we are more apt to confound visible with tangible IDEAS, than other signs with the things
Comments (0)