"Rob" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.
'Veridical perception' - oxymoron.
Wrong.

Google finds upwards of 100,000 references to this
phrase.

Wrong.

different.

15,300 actually.....

The myth here is that Google results are unchanging.

The current number is "about 14,300". YMMV.

However, 10,000 or 100,000 aren't signfiicantly
different in this context. It's all "lots".

BTW thanks for distracting the discussion on a trivial
point - that's known as the proverbial "red herring"
argument. I knew you couldn't do any better than that -
like try to stay relevant.

I think you were trying to point out to us all that your
preferred rationale was near-ubiquitous.

It's not a rationale, its a reasonably common word phrase, given that it is
highly specific to the study of perception.

My point that a
google search showed that 1) it's relatively minor, and
2) context is important (IOW many of those references
could be critical).

Pardon me, but if that was truely your point, why did it take so much
prodding to get it out of you?

So I at least was trying to get to the bottom of the
basis of your argument, rather than the outputs you
generate.

No, you were trying to respond to a serious discussion with redicule.

End of discussion, on the grounds that casting pearls before swine is
generally not wise.