tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post8112884728752573249..comments2024-03-09T09:06:35.288+00:00Comments on Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists: Specification: What It Is, and Why We Need It (Specification I)Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-91102209460517273302023-02-01T08:27:25.919+00:002023-02-01T08:27:25.919+00:00Revisiting this and thanks again for doing these b...Revisiting this and thanks again for doing these blogs. Question:<br /><br />How might an organism distinguish between a relationship which is lawful and one which has behaved lawfully up to the present but has un-encountered contingencies?Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-48412031332588031232012-06-10T10:00:42.672+01:002012-06-10T10:00:42.672+01:00I agree with the sentiment; but one-to-many is, I ...I agree with the sentiment; but one-to-many is, I think, unlikely given the kind of lawful processes underpinning projection from world property into optic array. A given event produces many invariants, but each only specifies one property of that event. They may be correlated to each other (see about two posts from now when I review some empirical work by Jacobs, Michels and Runeson) but that's a different story.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-74288184095883436412012-06-08T17:46:30.673+01:002012-06-08T17:46:30.673+01:00Sounds good to me so far.
Many(states-of-the-wor...Sounds good to me so far. <br /><br />Many(states-of-the-word)-to-one(pattern-of-energy) is clearly a problem, as it is the foundation of most traditional arguments for indirect perception. As I read things, and you seem to agree, somehow that challenge must be overcome, or the direct perception game (at least as Gibson wanted to play it) cannot work. <br /><br />However, I never thought one-to-many was problematic. So long as the resultant 'many' has unique properties, one-to-many and one-to-one are (<i>for these purposes</i>) the same thing.<br /><br />This relates to it being annoying when Turvey insists on a single 'invariant' vs. a allowing formula specifying the relationship. It is trivial to name a variable, the challenge is finding the relevant relationship.Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.com