Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Continuing Commentary
Commentary on T. A. Stoffregen & B. G. Bardy (2001). On specification and the senses. BBS 24(2):195–261.

Teleological perception without a biological perceiver?

Théophile Ohlmann a1, Bernard Amblard a2 and Brice Isableu a3
a1 Laboratoire de Psychologie et de Neurocognition, UMR CNRS 5105, 38040 Grenoble CEDEX 9, France
a2 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Développement et Pathologie du Mouvement, 13402 Marseille CEDEX 20, France
a3 Centre de Recherche en Sciences du Sport, UPRES 1609, Division STAPS, Université Paris Sud-XI, 91 405 Orsay CEDEX, Batiment 335, France


Strong between- and within-animal differences during spatial activities lead us to claim that a given animal is directly sensitive to a given substructure of the global array. This vicarious subset is not cut out by the senses but by redundancies emerging from physical properties. We argue that the subset is not a single ambient array, or a combination of single ambient arrays, but a complex holistic part of the global array.