Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that J.J. Gibson's ecological psychology shows perception is a direct pickup of affordances, making the seeming/perceiving distinction theoretically idle.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Illusions, hallucinations, and perceptual learning show information pickup alone cannot explain perception without appeal to seeming.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The seeming/perceiving distinction captures a real phenomenological difference that direct realism about affordances doesn't eliminate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if affordances are directly available, their *detection* requires selectional processes that constitute a form of seeming.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Affordances are directly specified in ambient energy arrays, requiring no intervening mental representation or interpretation stage.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Seeming/perceiving distinction presupposes a representational gap that ecological psychology empirically dissolves through direct coupling.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Organisms successfully navigate without internal models of 'how things seem'—behavior tracks objective affordance structure directly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42