An alternative approach
A previous article discussed assumptions in an alternative approach to perception.
Traditional assumptions led us to starving our central executive of accurate, meaningful information from the outside world.
In other words...
We see a bad copy of the world, but the brain doesn't have a good way to know if it's real or not.
This means...
Unless we perform mental gymnastics, it can be hard to explain the simplest of experiences.
So, where did we go wrong?
This article continues the conversation, inspired by Julia Blau and Jeffrey Wagman from their book: Introduction to Ecological Psychology: A Lawful Approach to Perceiving, Acting, and Cognizing
The assumptions
Following these 8 traditional assumptions, we are left in a bit of a pickle.
The world actually exists.
We are born with no knowledge and gain all knowledge through our senses.
Our senses (somehow) inform us about the world.
All causality must be local.
Contact with the world is mediated by a copy.
The copy delivered to the brain is bad and needs to be fixed.
Unconscious inference is used to fix the bad copy - learned cues and rules are unconsciously applied to create a mental representation of the world.
Once the copy is fixed, the representation of the world is your experience of the world.
So, let's revisit the assumptions through an ecological lens.
Assumption 1
"The world actually exists."
If the world didn't exist, it wouldn't matter if our experience was true, or seemed true.
As scientists, we should be interested in how the world works.
But to do that, we must assume it exists.
So let's keep this assumption.
Assumption 2
"We are born with no knowledge and gain all knowledge through our senses."
Gaining knowledge from experience, or empiricism, seems a safe assumption.
However, starting with no knowledge, tabula rasa, has some issues.
It's often assumed learning begins at birth.
Discounting any learning between conception and birth.
But the developmental experience of a human in a womb, or a bird in an egg, are different.
Does the different information available count for nothing?
What about instincts?
We could say we are born with instincts, from our DNA
But that idea is unsupportable.
Instead, we could say constraints of the organism and environment produce certain behaviours.
“A tall person will duck under a low barrier. That does not mean that ducking needs to be coded into the DNA”
The tabula rasa also discounts organism capabilities.
Needs like eating are with us at birth, but the body affords different actions.
A human has hands, whereas a bird has wings.
“Other animals would have different needs and different capabilities”
This means the first experience of an object would be different for each organism.
In addition, space is not the same as environment.
A human and bird in a room, would be in the same geometric space, but the human would likely stay on the ground, whereas the bird may fly around.
Thus, the environment relates to organism capabilities. The concept of an ecological niche.
An ecological niche, is how an organism survives, finds shelter, and specific ways it relates to the environment.
So instead of being born with no knowledge and gaining all knowledge through our senses...
“Knowledge is gained from experience, but experience begins before birth and is shaped by the constraints of the niche and the organism.”
Assumption 3
"Our senses (somehow) inform us about the world."
There is another assumption within this assumption.
The assumption, senses are passive.
We are informed by our senses about things. Stimulations.
Then we think, we do something to make sense of those things.
But we don't aimlessly wonder, we go looking, we behave with a purpose.
We will see some objects as edible, others not.
And our behaviour will change accordingly.
So instead of our senses informing us about the world...
“organisms use their perceptual systems to inform themselves about the world.”
Organisms actively engage with the sensed information.
Assumption 4
"All causality must be local."
Thing A can cause thing B, if A is in direct contact with thing B.
But as discussed in the previous article, this isn't accurate.
So traditional approaches put something in-between, a copy of the world.
With or without the copy, events cause the next event in line. Linear causality.
A causes B, which causes C and so on.
However, there are various possible causes for an event.
Meaning there could be multiple causes for an event.
Some causes local, some distant, some obvious, some not.
Thus, it is easier to say what doesn't cause something, than what does.
If there are multiple causes, then A and B and C might cause D.
We can call this non-linear causality, as it is not in a straight line from A to D.
With complex systems like us, non-linear patterns are far more common.
So our causality might not be local.
With non-linear causality, the usual time-order relation could also be challenged.
A future event causing current behaviours, like motivation.
Using language from dynamical systems' theory, we can say;
“instead of thinking of causality as a singular unbroken line, we conceive of events as emergent from the interactions among an entire system.”
Later articles will address systems theory - that is a big conversation!
Assumption 5
"Contact with the world is mediated by a copy."
Assuming our bad copy needs fixing, led us to the starved central executive.
We use the copy to solve the action-at-a-distance problem.
But if there are distant causes, the problem is questionable.
So instead of indirectly perceiving the world through a copy;
“we are going to make the assumption of direct perception.”
Direct perception removes the need for a copy, so we can reject this assumption through the ecological lens.
Assumption 6
"The copy delivered to the brain is bad and needs to be fixed."
As we assume direct perception, this assumption can be rejected, as there is no bad copy to fix.
It is worth noting…
Traditionally, our copy of the world requires interpretation and computation due to the bad stimulation.
But what if the stimulation reaching sense organs was good?
Some argue the Beuchet chair illusion proves we use the retinal image, thus indirectly perceive.
However, the illusion only works at a very specific angle, some criticising the geometry.
So the stimulation is bad, if we remove all available information from movement and exploration.
This is where Gibson's work becomes foundational to the ecological approach.
Instead of looking for objective properties like height, width, size, distance, or shape.
Gibson suggests we look for relational properties.
Relationships between an organism, perceiver, and environment.
Knowing the objective height of a chair is less useful, than if we know the height in relation to us.
Can we sit on it or not?
So the relationship we have with an illusion, can alter our perception of the illusion.
Movement matters.
But those invariant relationships only exist relationally.
Between organism and environment.
Therefore, the stimulation is good, if we describe it appropriately.
Using the organism and environment relationship, rather than objective properties from sense receptors.
We should;
“look at what variables seem to be useful to the person in guiding behavior and then ask how those variablaes might be detected.”
Assumption 7
"Unconscious inference is used to fix the bad copy - learned cues and rules are unconsciously applied to create a mental representation of the world."
As we assume direct perception, this assumption can be rejected, as there is no bad copy to fix.
However, there are 2 other issues worth considering:
All stimulations will be slightly different, so how does the central executive match stimulations accurately?
The maximum likelihood or probability suggestions from the previous article are plausible solutions.
But there is an issue with the logic.
How can we start with no knowledge and need information from prior experiences to interpret stimulations using probabilities at the same time?
If the first copy was made with no information, then we don't need prior experiences for probability interpretation.
If the first copy was made with information, then we used loaned knowledge, so nned to start with knowledge.
They can’t both be true.
Assumption 8
"Once the copy is fixed, the representation of the world is your experience of the world."
Again, with direct perception, this assumption can be rejected.
But it is worth considering the mind-body problem.
Some views describe:
The body as a machine operated via the nervous system.
The mind, a non-physical controller of the body.
This often appears in our language.
“We feel as though we are the thing that is in charge of our body”
However, how can a non-physical thing affect a physical thing, like our body?
This division of the unconscious mind and body controller, seems strange and inefficient.
If the mind is separate from the central executive, how would it use sensed information to help with our experience of the world?
So what?
Traditional views, as discussed in a previous article, lead to unsolvable problems.
When revisiting the assumptions from the ecological approach, we can:
Keep the first assumption.
Alter the second and third assumptions.
And disregard the rest.
Thus, moving away from unsolvable problems.
This is a radically different approach to perception, leading towards very different questions.
Modification is therefore not a viable option.
“causality should be complex and dynamic instead of simple and linear; information should be organism-relevant rather than objective, and perception should be active and direct instead of passive and indirect.”
If you are curious how we start again, subscribe for the next article.
And for an overview, check out this previous post.
PS: I would highly recommend purchasing a copy of the book if this interests you!