"polly jo" <jopower at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.740.1146101241.16885.neur-sci at net.bio.net...
> Hi GS,
>> "GS: Think about the notion that what we see is some
> sort of distorted copy of the world. According to this
> view, the world is copied (albeit upside-down and
> distorted) on the retina. This copy is then split up
> into parts and sent scrambling around the brain, but
> its sum total is still some kind of representation
> (actually, this gives rise to the pseudo-problem
> called the "binding problem"). This process continues
> on and on, but not infinitely. At some point there
> must be some other part of the brain that "sees" or
> otherwise "utilizes this information." But that would
> mean that
> there is a sort of seeing or "information utilization"
> that does not require copies. But why can seeing the
> world not be of this sort?"
>> ...the last part of the argument is intriguing.....
> what sort of a system would utilize the information
> directly, I wonder....
> I imagine you are making a distinction between the
> "real" and the "percept"..... the argument is
> circular, however, if ones reality is ones perception
> of reality..... how would then one distinguish between
> the two... I am also assuming a certain increase in
> "information entropy" as it travels from say retina to
> the layer IV of the visual cortex
Hi. I am not saying that "percept" is "reality" (and "percept" assumes
representationalism). Actually I did not say anything about my own view - at
least in what you quoted - but I will now. My view (and not one I invented
myself) is that perception is behavior. Some of it is reflexive, and
elicited by aspects of the world. Some of it is operant behavior and is, at
first, reinforced by its sensory consequences. Such behavior is, presumably,
also under stimulus control of aspects of the world. Later (after infancy)
perceptual responses become embedded in larger response classes that make a
more "macroscopic" contact with the world and are reinforced by the more
public consequences of those responses. This is somewhat technical, but it
has the quality of being brief.
Cordially,
Glen
>> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com>
