[FRIAM] Friday Fodder

Sat Mar 27 13:50:06 EDT 2021

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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Eric,
>
>
>
> Use your words!  Tell me how you FEEL!  (};-)]
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 27, 2021 7:43 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at 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 <thompnickson2 at 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
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 4:02 PM
> To: friam at 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210327/9eb579ae/attachment.html>