Und die Konsequenzen?

"[...] a new model has arisen over the past decade, in which visual cognition is understood not as a camera but something more like a flashlight beam sweeping a twilit landscape. At any particular instant, we can only see detail and color in the small patch we are concentrating on. The rest we fill in through a combination of memory, prediction and a crude peripheral sight. We don't take in our surroundings so much as actively and constantly construct them." Daher schlussfolgert man inzwischen: "'Our picture of the world is kind of a virtual reality, [...] a form of intelligent hallucination.' The benefit of these sorts of cognitive shortcuts is that they allow us to create a remarkably rich image of our environment despite the fact that our two optic nerves have roughly the resolution of cell-phone cameras."

Die Konsequenz ist durchaus die Richtige: "'The main thing is knowing that you've got limitations'". Allerdings scheint mir die Tragweite dieser neurologischen Erkenntnis keineswegs erschöpfend genug gefasst zu sein: "The control and management of attention is vital in all sorts of realms. Airplane cockpits and street signs would be designed better, security guards would be trained to be more alert, computer graphics would feel more natural, teaching less coercive.(Quelle, via).

Was, über ihre alltagspragmatische Anwendbarkeit hinaus, bedeuten solche Einsichten in die Wahrnehmungsleistungen des Menschen für die Geisteswissenschaften, für jede Erkenntnistheorie? "[K]nowing that you've got limitations" ist noch kein Eingeständnis, zu dem ich mich durchringen muss. Welcher Übertrag bleibt also für "uns" zu verrechnen?