Dear Doreen,
Great stuff!
>'Name all the events in a moment of perceptual experience. Do we have
>enough words to adequately reflect such a moment's real complexity?' (2011
>p.?)
The question for me is not whether we could name all the events but rather
why would we bother trying?
My consciousness is a finely tuned instrument of my significant
determining.
That is, things that exist in my consciousness are attended to, by me, in
executive ways.
Sure, Gibson points out that the invariant aspects of my perceptual
relationship with a world AFFORD my perceptions of that world and my being
in that world.
I can exceed this relationship by experimentally driving so fast that the
complexity of inputs means I crash (best done virtually).
But, in my daily life I mostly attend to consciousness in a reciprocal way.
I presume that what is presented to consciousness is available to
consciousness.
That is, there is NO tricky god or devil that gives me junk.
Such a relationship of trust is not essential; rather, it is descriptive.
I decide to treat consciousness as the object of my contemplation, for my
purposes.
Are there loops? Yep.
keith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|