Perception as action

[archytas]

Enactive theories of imagery may be seen as modern successors to the motor theories of the early twentieth century. They depend the idea that perception is not mere passive receptivity (or even receptivity plus inner processing), but a form of action, something done by the organism.  The literature is legion. The perceiving organism is not merely registering but exploring and asking questions of its environment, actively and intentionally (though not necessarily with conscious volition) seeking out the answers in the sensory stimuli that surround it. Imagery is then experienced when someone persists in acting out the seeking of some particular information even though they cannot reasonably expect it to be there. We have imagery of, say, a cat, when we go through (some of) the motions of looking at something and determining that it is a cat, even though there is no cat (and perhaps nothing relevant at all) there to be seen. Visually imagining a cat is seeing nothing-in-particular as a cat.

I'd have a bet that Facil could sketch my cat, a fluffy black and white ball of haughty 'evil' with claws and purring schemer leading me and two dogs a merry dance of Salome to get a midnight feast share.

[archytas]

This photograph looks rather mundane.  It has been widely posted under the title 'Why America is not prepared for an ebola outbreak'.  The rolled up sleeves on the hasmat suit being the cue.

[archytas]

Scientist gears up to evaluate Facilitator's art?

[Allan]

lol; -)

Allan
Living Soul

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[facilitator]

Perception is everything.  We actually have the arrogance to call something "3D"!   Our mind tells us what scale to place items in and at what distance.  I find it humorous also from a philosophical point of view when people call something "A near death Experience". Everything in life is a near death experience when we finally realize the deception of something known as "Time".  It is not quantifiable but we still rely on that tick that somehow represents 1 second.

Back to perception.   From a historical perspective, what have we not created that we have not perceived at first?  The Sci Fi people seem to have a leg up on this, still,  the gap of idea to invention keeps getting narrower.

[Allan]

Time only marks a point in non time. The present , the future is only a possibility and does not exist ~ yet ~ and the past is only a reference point.
The quirkiness of time really begins in observations of electrons highly observable in the hydrogen's solitary electron as it changes orbit without time lapse. Considering orbits are specific distances ..  The leap of orbital distance is tremendous. Leaving one orbit continuing on in a totally different orbit in random selection.
Time is strange to say the least considering sciences dependency on it.

Allan
Living Soul

-----Original Message-----
From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <mind...@googlegroups.com>
To: mind...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:48 PM
Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action

[facilitator]

As I said before Allan, there is no "Present"  everything, now matter how perceptively small a fraction, is in the past.  The only possible way to be in the "Present" is to freeze time.  And again, it is not a substance or a quantifiable entity.  It is simply an invention of man. 

[Allan]

Tony been through that and agree with you except you apparently do not accept common meanings of words.
So what else is there ,, we covered the topic of the 3D ..
Someday Tony an original thought is rare, extremely rare.
If you look at the idea there is a totality of knowledge in Hinduism it is referred to as a cosmic egg and contains all knowledge. You cross a time/space barrier and bring an idea into our reality . . . 

[archytas]

Sartre (1940) and Wittgenstein (1967 §§627, 632) also argue that (in sharp contrast to perception) we can derive no new information about the world from our imagery: No image can contain anything except what the imager put there, which must already have been in his or her mind. However, not only observation, but also inference can lead to knowledge, and it has been argued that mental imagery can and does support certain types of inference that give us genuinely new knowledge about the real world (Kosslyn, 1980, 1983; Taylor, 1981, Georgiou, 2007; Thomas, 2014).[2] McGinn, however, (2004 p. 19ff) argues that although Sartre and Wittgenstein overstate their point, there is a genuine and important insight underlying what they say: The information we can derive from our imagery is of a different sort, and is derived in a different way, from that which we get from perception.

I forget where the above comes from.  There is a massive discussion on whether something non-perceptual can lead to new knowledge.  My first non-scientific writing was called 'Would a Change of Title Change the Work' an MA thesis on human resource management!  I was taught by some good people who didn't think my regard for the subject as drivel should exclude me.  These days I think of it as evil drivel.

Science strikes me as rather consumed with myths of origin - big bang and evolution - that may restrict our ability to grok what we construct and the limitations of our senses and geometry.  I favour  a lot of what Tony says and constructs (it's Neil here).  My aliens wonder how to communicate in earth-language mostly designed to deceive and delivered in words that are a fraction of main sense communication.  And I've always seen the sense of Allan 'throwing a stone-chiselled tablet with a few spots of colour on it' into a lawsuit between Apple and Samsung.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[facilitator]

Correct Mr. Heretic!  I do not accept common meanings of words.  When real communication occurs there are subtleties and nuances, inflections, body language etc. that give a deeper (or more proper) understanding of what is actually being said.  The internet has reduced "Communication" to a series of letters sometimes accentuated with punctuation.   Ex:  Peace can mean the absence of war or the subjugation of all opposing views.

[archytas]

One might accept the common meanings in their use Facil.  This would quickly lead us up the garden path in quantum considerations of 'spin' and 'colour' without consideration of that use.  Most common terms, like freedom seem to need at least double consideration - personal freedom raising, as we speak, issues of the collective.  Democracy seems to need a recognition of the evil done in its name.

[facilitator]

That's true, one can accept the common meanings.  My preference is to hear the word, apply the common acceptance of the word and then decide for myself what it "Means".  Democracy is (has been) horrid.  Scaling it down to a simple mob would elucidate this fact since the final outcome rarely illuminates the catalyst of the problem.  A number of years ago I had a gentlemen (minister) whom I strongly disagreed with on a theological point because I did not accept the "group think" and his conclusion was that either he was right and I was wrong or vice versa.  I said there is another, less widely accepted answer, and that is, "We could both be wrong".  

[archytas]

We generally do two types of meaning theory - semantic and foundational.   it is worth noting that one prominent tradition in the philosophy of language denies that there are facts about the meanings of linguistic expressions. (See, for example, Quine 1960 and Kripke 1982; for critical discussion, see Soames 1999.) 

Soames 1999, “Skepticism About Meaning: Indeterminacy, Normativity, and the Rule-following Paradox,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23: 211–249.

I prefer Facil's more cogent 'we might both be wrong'!  Sue has just handed me a paper with the title, 'Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organisations' by Andre Spicer of Cass Business School.  The abstract starts, 'This article argues that great deal of 'talk' and text' in organisational settings is ultimately bullshit ... produced with scant regard  for truth and is used to wilfully mislead and pursue the interests of the bullshiter ... appealing on the surface but ultimately brittle'.  The firm GTAT is a current example, 'yesterday a buy, today in Chapter 11 bankruptcy'.

[Molly]

Getting people to work cooperatively is certainly a challenge.  Not sure if words, whether bull or not, facilitate when the war of agendas ensues. Something in me always leads to the higher truth, that the changing nature of experience is bound to changing viewpoint, the filter made up of those aspects of self better left behind like belief, concept, ego and other mental construct. What reflects back to us in the form of experience calls us to shed what doesn't work anymore and move into a greater harmony, It keeps calling until we recognize the call and our experience then changes, deconstructs, reconstructs, and calls again.