From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Mind:

2011-06-07
The time-lag argument for the representational theory of perception
Hi JKW,
I read your article Time and Depth, and must disagree fundamentally.

Although admittedly the Necker cube experience appears partially 2-D and partially 3-D, you cannot convince me that I don't experience it as a solid volumetric experience, with bars in the foreground separated from bars in the background by a volume of empty space, not just a fluctuation in time. But whatever you see for the Necker cube, you can hardly deny that our ordinary everyday experience of the world around us is a solid volumetric experience! To claim that experience is anything other than as it is experienced to be, is a contradiction in terms. And I experience the world around me as a solid volumetric spatial experience, like a theater set, or museum diorama. It suggests a computational mechanism like this:

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/bubw3/bubw3.html#compmech


to account for the observed properties of experience. While it is true that we do not experience the hidden rear surfaces of perceived objects, we do experience their exposed front faces as sloping in depth, and embedded in a volumetric spatial manifold. That is at least *my* experience!