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 theophile.ohlmann@upmf-grenoble.fr
a2 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire de Développement et Pathologie du Mouvement, 13402 Marseille CEDEX 20, France amblard@lnf.cnrs-mrs.fr
a3 Centre de Recherche en Sciences du Sport, UPRES 1609, Division STAPS, Université Paris Sud-XI, 91 405 Orsay CEDEX, Batiment 335, France Brice.Isableu@staps.u-psud.fr

Abstract

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.



Metrics