I am particularly interested in Gibsonian ecological psychology, radical enactivism, and Helmholtzian-Bayesian predictive inference. Despite disagreements voiced by proponents of radical enactivism about the apparent non-representational approach of ecological psychology, let's assume that the former two lie under the scope of direct approach to perception where manipulation of contents and constructivism are not required, while Bayesian predictive inference lies in the camp of mental representation where internal enrichment of sensory data is default. What i am interested in knowing is: have there been any experiments in neuroscience and cognitive science that have strengthened either side of the debate? I have noticed that optical illusions are often utilized to strengthen predictive inference while ecological psychology is often supported with research on haptic perception and optic flow in regards to motion parallax, but i haven't read up on more experiments so far. Also, i am aware of the dark room problem as well as the "hard problem of content" (alleged lack of a naturalistic explanation for content) that predictive inference faces, but i am more interested in examples of specific experiments that aid either position on the debate.
Is the perceptual intermediary not directly from the external body? And if it isn't directly from the external body, what is it and what is it from (and how is it kept from crossing into something like idealism)?
What are the differences and similarities between these two competing views of perception? Also, which one is more in line with views from the psychology of perception?
This is for midterm that is coming up and i'm having trouble deciphering the notes my TA gave us.
Thanks!
Edit: title should have said Direct (Naive) realism sorry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
What's your take on this? Right now I'm leaning towards indirect/representationalism, though I'm skeptical because I feel like I'm buying into the "illusion of mind", if you will.
It would appear that a Cartesian demon hypothesis would, on the face of it, be the most logically parsimonious explanation for our perceptual experience (even if it isn't the best explanation for it for other reasons, e.g. explanatory and predictive power). Is this really the case, or are there hidden lemmas in the hypothesis that render it less credible anyway?
First of all, I’m studying A-Level philosophy and I’m fairly new so feel free to poke holes in my flawed logic. Also, I’m not sure if this is fit this sub so I apologise if it doesn’t.
At the moment I’m doing direct/indirect realism and idealism and I had a thought. Does the fact that we know light and sound have to hit our sensory organs and be converted into electrical signals support the idea that there is some kind of mediator between the perceiver and the perceived object.
Would the “hard problem” or consciousness support this? There’s something that translates electrical signals into the feeling of “being” that we can’t understand.
Once again, I apologise if this isn’t fit to the sub, and thank you for your time.
I genuinely can’t figure it out. If someone has any advice, hacks, tips, please provide them because i’m losing my mind haha
Has anyone run into having 2 people watching shows but one of them getting an indirect connection and the other playing normally? The person with the indirect connection signed out and signed back in and then their connection was fine. I seem to be getting this lately more and more and am wondering what is causing this. Thanks!
I’m working through Dorothy Richmond’s Spanish Verb Tenses workbook and one chapter is on “the personal a.” I understand that an a is used when referring to a specific person (or pet!) if the person is the direct object of a verb. We were working on object pronouns in class recently so I feel comfortable with this idea, but this one phrase confused me a bit from this workbook: we were asked to translate “Do you believe the president?” and I would have written, “¿Crees al presidente?” but the answer key says, “¿Le crees al presidente?”
Who is the “le” referring to here?
Thanks in advance for any guidance on this maybe very obvious question!!
.
As you know girls make most of their decisions based on their emotions. When girls get cold approached and it’s often very direct to the point it can sometimes put them off guard and put them in a defense mode. You’ll see it where the girl is put in auto pilot mode and her response is “I have a boyfriend” even though she doesn’t but that’s the first thing she thinks to say in that situation.
With the indirect approach, it’s very helpful at mitigating her putting up a wall or defense because you’re actually warming her up, and warming up her attraction for you. The indirectness allows her to wonder what you want from her and creates mystery. For instance, saying hey let’s get drinks together sometime versus hey I like you I wanna take you out for drinks because I think you’re cute allows the girl to not make a decision right on the spot. She doesn’t know entirely what you want from her which means that there is no pressure for sex to happen when you go out. This is good because A) your goal is to get her to go out with you so you can spike those emotions B) because after you warm her up on the date and spike her emotions you’ve won half the battle and then all you gotta do is escalate physically.
Moreover, sometimes as guys we get too impatient and think that girls get attracted to us the same way we do. We forget that we need to warm them up slowly, and get them to eventually let their ASD guards down so we can get to what we really want.
What do you guys think of this opinion? As a 22 year old guy with over 25 bodies I’ve noticed that overtime being indirect is smarter because as women get older they get smarter and see through our bullshit. This especially works well with the HB9s and 10s.
