the physical apparatus by which we sense everyday experience is proprioceptive, which means that what we are actually sensing are the responses of our own cerebro-nervous system.
This looks like another case of 'man-within-a-man' model of idealism.
According to the insights of empiricism; the phenomenon of sensation has primary value, while all other entities are secondary.
Through repeated experience, we learn there are constants and variables.
To explain our senses, the constants, and the variables that show regularity or range of variance, we have developed a vocabulary of entities (nouns) where the arrow denotes the direction of flow of an information bit.
1) object-->2) observer.
In terms of object-agent relations, a formally identical relationship can be said in vebs (actually verbals)
1) (that which is) observed-->2) (person who is) observing (which)
or
1) (that which) reveals (itself) --> 2) (to whom it is) revealed.
This process of knowing can be called 'sensation,' 'perception,' or 'cognition,' and this suffices to explain our sensation of objects.
It is to be noted there is already an abstraction involved; assuming two entities to conveniently explain our experience of 'perception.'
Now to assume a third entity 'response,' borrowing the word from the passage, to come between object and observer is not only unnecessary, but misleading.
1) object-->2) neural response-->3)observer
This model is an overcomplexified model of perception. Perhaps the author is assuming abstact thinking; such as reflecting on pimary perception... then it might work. In fact we can go on in any number of abstractions upon abstactions on end. But the thesis regarded 'sensation.'
Often times 'knowing' something through our senses is non-reflective, as when a soft ball player catches a ball in the field with little conscious reflection but in a combination of desire to catch, empirical calculation of ball speed and running speed, and conditioned reflexes obtained from years of physical activity all happening in a split second. The mental calculations may be fast, numerous, and adaptive, but there is no intermediate 'neural response' that is separate from, and observed by, the player's mind. See Mad Pierrot's post in
Descartes.
Another possiblity is that the author could have confused syllogism with perception. We can have several primary perceptions in parellel, all adding up to a grand sum so to speak. That does not require a tri-partite model of perception; only a number of two-partite perceptions.
We are not Mazinga Z's requiring pilots to man them because we are the pilots themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a state of physical activity called 'oriented' ~ing.
The idea of not having the customary gauges to fine-tune or adjust your maneuvers (such as night-time shooting; swinging a bat; what else..??) to use the end result as a substitue for ordinary predefined gauges engineered to be used for one's adjustment. In this case, the first sensation becomes one's feelers for the second move. And the rifle or bat, although without any neural connections or receptors, works as if it were part of the nerve-connected body of the shooter or player.
The elevated state of the person's senses will give superior results. But this does not involve the tri-partite model of perception, either. This is merely parallel two-partite perceptions in temporal sequence where learning/adjusting becomes accelerated by way of iterated accumulation due to keen observation of one's bodily coordination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Kinsao: Yes, the -p-r-t-c-k-ly also brought a smile. Why is it such a hated word ? Does anybody use it to offend anymore ?
My brain just can't deal with that sort of analysis! :sorry:
, but my favourite book of his is Fahrenheit 451
