tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post9184759666469275469..comments2023-12-20T19:30:28.788-05:00Comments on Fixing Psychology: Could Affordances Structure Light? Eric Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-7605272186475889382013-02-21T05:19:23.864-05:002013-02-21T05:19:23.864-05:00Dispositions are physically formed by anchoring pr...Dispositions are physically formed by anchoring properties; the glass is fragile because of what it's made of. The disposition to break exists and can be defined, even if there are no hard surfaces (as far as I know). This is one of the things I like about the dispositional account; it makes affordances something that might serve as a target that can shape evolutionary and developmental Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-80452775825722552222013-02-20T21:17:44.220-05:002013-02-20T21:17:44.220-05:00Ok... backing up.
Aren't (in TSM) Affordance...Ok... backing up. <br /><br />Aren't (in TSM) Affordances and Effectivities complementary, such that one cannot exist without the other? <br /><br />And also such that if an affordance meets the proper effectivity it MUST obtain?!? <br /><br />The same way a "fragile" glass MUST break when it hits a hard surface?<br /><br />I think you are wussing out on the rigidity of what TSM areEric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-83361413416602730492013-02-20T04:21:32.503-05:002013-02-20T04:21:32.503-05:00For Gibson the Bat is the right kind of organism, ...<i>For Gibson the Bat is the right kind of organism, but circumstances are off.<br /><br />By your account, for TSM, the bat is not the right kind of organism. And if you are not the right kind of organism, you are not afforded the opportunity, by definition. </i><br />I'm saying the bat who can't see the cave isn't currently in a position to effect the affordance because there is no Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-63847464936539039512013-02-19T12:46:29.595-05:002013-02-19T12:46:29.595-05:00P.S. Note, such an entanglement doesn't necess...P.S. Note, such an entanglement doesn't necessarily mean TSM is "wrong". I am making the lesser assertion that we should better understand the consequences of heading that direction, and that should choose the direction we want to go with such consequences in mind.Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-13543288086899418562013-02-19T11:24:08.384-05:002013-02-19T11:24:08.384-05:00Alright... but who is afforded?
For Gibson the B...Alright... but <i>who</i> is afforded? <br /><br />For Gibson the Bat is the right kind of organism, but circumstances are off. <br /><br />By your account, for TSM, the bat is not the right kind of organism. And if you are not the right kind of organism, <i>you</i> are not afforded the opportunity, by definition. <br /><br />I am not accusing them of conflating anything. I am accusing them of Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-91249175950809380452013-02-19T10:21:35.195-05:002013-02-19T10:21:35.195-05:00Effecting an affordance requires you to be able to...Effecting an affordance requires you to be able to perceive it. You aren't the right kind of dispositional partner if you can't perceive it, as evidenced by the fact that you aren't effecting the affordance. TSM have no trouble saying the cave affords flying through for the bat, and that at time A the bat cannot perceive the affordance but can at time B. <br /><br />TSM aren't Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-73266882031874946722013-02-18T22:36:02.192-05:002013-02-18T22:36:02.192-05:00Second,
.... No one wants to say that one can'...<i>Second,<br />.... No one wants to say that one can't tell the difference between a sitonable chair and a non-sitonable chair. The problem is whether one can tell the difference between a sitonable chair and a non-sitonable chair just by looking, which is what Gibson said. </i><br /><br />Well, now we get to a more interesting problem: "What was Gibson up to, and did he succeed?" Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-85560082479335729472013-02-18T20:48:24.708-05:002013-02-18T20:48:24.708-05:00First, Gibson made claims about structuring light,...<i>First, Gibson made claims about structuring light, not ambient energy. The former is a stronger principle than the latter. Structure light entails structuring ambient energy, but not vice versa. So, you are not defending Gibson.</i><br /><br />Well... while it is true that Gibson's last book focused almost entirely on vision, the 1966 book clearly dealt with the full range of "Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-26574720744030448222013-02-18T09:17:42.269-05:002013-02-18T09:17:42.269-05:00First, Gibson made claims about structuring light,...First, Gibson made claims about structuring light, not ambient energy. The former is a stronger principle than the latter. Structure light entails structuring ambient energy, but not vice versa. So, you are not defending Gibson.<br /><br />Second,<br />"The ecological psychologist adds, to be more specific, that the difference will, under at least some set of circumstances, structure Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539727534751588479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-33658707765602419912013-02-16T15:59:54.228-05:002013-02-16T15:59:54.228-05:00What do you mean by this; why is the UConn approac...<i>What do you mean by this; why is the UConn approach troubled by this?</i><br /><br />Well, recall that I think the UConn approach is unnecessarily dogmatic about certain issues, and that this dogmatism (potentially) leads to some serious conundrums. Among other things, UConn says that affordances <i>must</i> lawfully produce the ambient energy pattern that an organism <i>must</i> be lawfully Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1483944200593561804.post-51182421055130860022013-02-14T05:20:21.613-05:002013-02-14T05:20:21.613-05:00In both of those cases, when the organism stops do...<i>In both of those cases, when the organism stops doing its part in generating the energy, the patterns-unique-to-the-affordances also disappear." It is worth noting that this is point on which, I believe, the Connecticut approach is in a much worse spot, philosophically, than is Gibson. </i><br />What do you mean by this; why is the UConn approach troubled by this?<br /><br /><i>That is, Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.com