Thanks for this concise exposition. See my channel on many ecological psychology issues including all of Gibson's own early demonstrations and videos. Do you have a follow-up part as you allude to at the end? Also, clarification: Gibson did not talk about inputs on the retina or anywhere - that's a computer metaphor! The retina is irrelevant for explaining perception. INFORMATION is the basis of perception, not the retina. You don't need a retina. Flies have compound eyes. Bats are largely blind, etc. But they all access information in the ambient array that has higher-order invariants, symmetries, ratios, embedded within it. The so-called sensory apparatus is misleading - there is no interpretation of sense data at the retina or anywhere. Direct perception is based on information, not sensations.
I don't understand how our professor just put a definition on the slide, read it and then moved on. Is it that hard to just use some examples, like in the video? Why do I HAVE TO find other materials to help me understand it?
yer but I believe the point is that as she learns what and how her body works and moves through the world she will come to perceive the world in relation to that.
@@jalexanderevans ummm to be honest im not sure but I think it would be seeing something that you perceive as manipulatable eg, a stone. then you pick it up and through it. you wouldn't see a bunch of objects and then evaluate there size and weight, placing your hand next to it to see if you could pick it up. it would be an instant proses based on all your prier movements through the world and interacting with it
Of course, this is a nonsense theory. There are dusty sponges that look like rocks. Anyone would pick one of those, and would be surprised at the light weight. Of course there are also genetic memories, like Fear of Heights.
I don't know why this is unpleasant to listen to (for me, as a psychologist interested in finding out about Gibson), even though it is clearer than textbooks. I am trying to figure out why some people are more interesting to listen to than others. I can listen to Hitchens or Sam Harris for quite a while, but this guys (and myself probably) are not good to listen to. Is it too slow? Is it a lack of tune in the voice? Is it a lack of connecting the dots as why this is profound? Is it a lack of a conflict in the story? Is it a lack of a narrative?
I finally got it. Gibson's idea was so confusing to read. Thank you for the explanation.
i'm so glad i'm not the only one to think that.. to exaggerate a little, i got so little of his points that i thought we were different species
If only textbooks were as clear and concise as this!!
This has helped me with my uni revision!
Thanks for this concise exposition. See my channel on many ecological psychology issues including all of Gibson's own early demonstrations and videos. Do you have a follow-up part as you allude to at the end? Also, clarification: Gibson did not talk about inputs on the retina or anywhere - that's a computer metaphor! The retina is irrelevant for explaining perception. INFORMATION is the basis of perception, not the retina. You don't need a retina. Flies have compound eyes. Bats are largely blind, etc. But they all access information in the ambient array that has higher-order invariants, symmetries, ratios, embedded within it. The so-called sensory apparatus is misleading - there is no interpretation of sense data at the retina or anywhere. Direct perception is based on information, not sensations.
I don't understand how our professor just put a definition on the slide, read it and then moved on. Is it that hard to just use some examples, like in the video? Why do I HAVE TO find other materials to help me understand it?
Very helpful... simply put and not a long video.
Indeed.
I'm pretty sure my baby had to figure out that she could throw things. She didn't just know. She had to learn it.
yer but I believe the point is that as she learns what and how her body works and moves through the world she will come to perceive the world in relation to that.
@@theuncomfortablethrill707 what do you think his definition of perceiving something directly is?
@@jalexanderevans ummm to be honest im not sure but I think it would be seeing something that you perceive as manipulatable eg, a stone. then you pick it up and through it. you wouldn't see a bunch of objects and then evaluate there size and weight, placing your hand next to it to see if you could pick it up. it would be an instant proses based on all your prier movements through the world and interacting with it
Of course, this is a nonsense theory.
There are dusty sponges that look like rocks. Anyone would pick one of those, and would be surprised at the light weight.
Of course there are also genetic memories, like Fear of Heights.
It's hard for me to understand Gibson's approach for staying so long reflecting on the classical conception of perception.
See my channel for many videos on direct perception by those who have done the actual research.
I had to speed up the video to actually take in what this guy from the 80s was saying 😂
Watch about non-direct perception by Steven Lehar
anyone know this guys name?
I don't know why this is unpleasant to listen to (for me, as a psychologist interested in finding out about Gibson), even though it is clearer than textbooks. I am trying to figure out why some people are more interesting to listen to than others. I can listen to Hitchens or Sam Harris for quite a while, but this guys (and myself probably) are not good to listen to. Is it too slow? Is it a lack of tune in the voice? Is it a lack of connecting the dots as why this is profound? Is it a lack of a conflict in the story? Is it a lack of a narrative?
ball 'ed
Interpret using own knowledge
Booooooriiiing
F
Thanks but Gibson was wrong
are you on Gregory's side?