I don’t know Eric, but I had hoped that his fingers had just inadvertently slipped when he was trying to type “Nick”. Otherwise, he should be ashamed.
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:10 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Eric, > > > > Use your words! Tell me how you FEEL! (};-)] > > > > N > > > > Nick Thompson > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Saturday, March 27, 2021 7:43 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Friday Fodder > > > > In Friday's meeting I apologized to Jon that I hadn't given him a proper > reply to his interesting prods, but that Nick's comments had somehow > mentally blocked me from doing so. Nick said: "For me, Gibson hopelessly > misunderstands his monist roots. Direct perception is either a tautology > or nonsense." > > > > I promise Jon a good reply later this weekend, as I get past that blockage > with the following: > > > > Look, prick, there are some very different discussions to be had here, and > pretending they are all the same discussion doesn't help anyone. The > philosophical monist doesn't get to pretend there is no mechanism involved > in perception any more than they get to pretend there is no mechanism > involved in a bridge bearing weight. > > > > Indirect-perception happens all the time. Looking at my wall right now, I > see a picture of Christi at our wedding. To me that picture re-presents > her, and that event, and if there is any sense in which I "perceive" *her > *while looking at the picture, that perception is not-direct, it is > mediated by the six-inch tall, flat, still, image. Separately, when I turn > my head about 15 degrees to the right, I see a walk-through-able doorway, > my open-able fridge door, a coffee-cup-put-onable counter-top, a navigable > hallway leading to my family room, etc. Need I tell the same type of story > about all of those things that I told about seeing Christi in our wedding > picture? Are *all *my perceptions *mediated *in that same sort of way? Or > is there some sense in which I perceive most objects and events around me > more directly than that? > > > > To answer those question, Gibson innovated an impressive array of > conceptual elements, including the idea of the ambient energy arrays as > ecological elements, invariants structures in those array, specificity as a > property of a subset of those invariants, and an analysis of the > evolutionary and developmental ways in which organisms can attune to those > specifying-invariants, and how all that comes together to allow organisms > to behave accurately with respect to the objects and events around them. > And all of that stands as a *huge* contribution to the literature, > regardless of anyone's thoughts about the particular term "direct > perception" and it's history; especially if one is somehow trying to > approach that term absent recognition of its multi-century history. > Gibson's description of the perceptual mechanism shows how we can explain > organism's perception of the functional implications of objects and events, > without (in the course of that explanation) punching the tar-baby of > picture perception and getting stuck with a dualistic cartesian theatre. > > > > That *explanation *connects strongly with the literatures on dynamics > system, perceptual control theory, agent based modeling, and others. And in > a world where most people in the field are still arguing that all > perception is indirect, it makes sense to label what Gibson is doing a > theory of direct perception. Your suggestion that it is a moral betrayal of > values to call it anything other than "perception" with no modifier, is > dumb. > > > > Why not just call your system "The Design Perspective"?!? Or to just pick > one of those words? The answer is simple: Because "Natural Design" > distinguishes your approach from those you are trying to chastise, and > by-sheer-virtue-of-label connects your approach with the literature on > "Natural Selection". Other people get to do things like that too. Gibson's > work fits within the long tradition of trying to defend the possibility of > direct perception, and there's nothing wrong with him and his supporters > making that clear. > > > > AND even though I started out by saying there are different conversations > to be had, they are not completely unconnected. You don't get to do the > bullshit Kantian move (that Peirce and so many other philosophers seems to > follow) of simply declaring the issues unrelated - that there is a > scientific psychology and a metaphysical psychology and never the twain > shall meet. No matter how much it seems like those should be two separate > things, either the scientific psychology can (ultimately) handle the > content of the metaphysical psychology or *both *sides are just blowing > wind. So, if you want to argue for a monist world, you can't go around > taking a giant dump on the work of anyone trying to figure out how we can > have mechanisms in such a world. Whatever it is that people are -- physical > people, in a physical world -- those hunks of meat have to be able, through > some process of dynamic interaction with their surroundings, to *do *whatever > it is your philosophy says they are doing. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:40 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jon, > > Say more! I don't yet see the connection. > > For me, Gibson hopelessly misunderstands his monist roots. Direct > perception is either a tautology or nonsense. If one is dualist, and > separates the world from our perception of it, then it is nonsense. If one > is a monist, then all experience is direct and calling it "direct" is > wasted breath. There, EricC, I have finally said it! > > Still pondering your last contribution to the writing thread. > > N > Nick Thompson > thompnicks...@gmail.com > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 4:02 PM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friday Fodder > > """ > I feel like I completely understand your problem, but cannot solve it. > You point to, what is for me, the most bemusing problem in evolutionary > theory, the evolution of natural selection. Given the developmental > entanglement of traits, how do they become modules for the purpose of > selection. The tension between developmental biologists and Dawkins-like > biologists is around this poing. Nobody disagrees that there is a lot of > entanglement and nobody disagrees that some traits get selected. I agree > that the burden of proof lies on the side of selection theorist to explain > how selection itself is possible! This what I find so tempting about > Stephen’s energy flow > ideas. Is there a “least action” explanation for modularity? > """ > > Similarly, is this a place where SteveG-style descriptions will meet > Gibson-style explanations? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/