Re: the scientific status of pcp

Gary Blanchard (
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:12:44 -0700

Dear Jim-

>James Mancuso wrote:
> >
> >> 1. the world is composed of objects and things,
> >> 2. these items become known to us through 'perception,'
> >> 3. this perception process basically operates automatically,
> >> somewhat like a tape-recorder or camera, into our 'mind'
> >> 4. and so does not involve any significant interpreting
> >> activity by us,
> >> 5. and is not affected by our observations of, or actions
> >> about, them.
> >>
> >> (b) The above, I submit, is a fair summary of what may be termed
> >> a philosophy / paradigm / ontology of Objectivism.
> >
> What could be meant by the item 3, above???

Why, just about anything COULD be, couldn't it? This must be a
rhetorical question.

> How could one possibly develop a position which holds that
> "perception operates automatically??"

See above. You know, I think you are making a comment under the guise of
asking a question. Could you even be, well, deprecating, here?

> First off, what is perception?

The best I can do at the moment is to quote from the Principia
Cynernetica Web, as I have in the attachment above. We can go to
Webster's or another dictionary, if you like.

>.... We might develop constructions about
> sensation involving energy tranlations at sensory end organs. What do
>we do
> from there? Do the neural energies somehow get translated into
>simulacra of
> whatever there might be in the "world out there" which we take to be
> associated with the energies which were transformed into neural energies???
> Of what do we speak when we speak of PERCEPTION.

See the Attachment.

> After that, we might want to talk about a process that we might
> regard as AUTOMATIC.
> I had concluded that the idea of external energies/neural
> correspondence as perception had gone out well before JJ Gibson came on
> scene!!!
> Jim MancusoI haven't had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Gibson, Jim. But I can assure
you that many people in the world seem to hold to something close to the
view I attempted to summarize above.

What, exactly, are you so irritated about?

Best wishes, Gary