In an earliest post, I wrote " something is going on during episodes of so-called "aperture vision" and a scientist might well want to know what. So, why not have a scientific study of aperture vision along with a scientific study of "the actual binocular vision system"?
In the comments, Gary wrote the following
What he meant was that mere sensory stimulation falls shorts of *meaningful* perceptual awareness i.e. an awareness of an affordance. It isn't like when you look through an aperture your vision fades to black or anything, *it just doesn't mean anything*. Gibson liked to talk about the Ganzfeld experiments wherein subjects looked at an undifferentiated visual field (you can try this with cut-open pingpong balls; it's fun). When you perceive an undifferentiated visual field (such as when looking at the pure sky), there is *sensory stimulation* but no available *stimulus information* and thus no perception an affordance, which is defined in terms of stimulus information (the information discrimination of which can help effectively regulate your changing relationship with the environment).
So Gibson would respond to Ken by saying that in the aperture experiment, there is mere sensation going on, but no perception, because perception is defined as the discrimination of meaningful ecological information and there is none available in the ambiguity of the aperture experiment.
I hope that clarifies things.So, here's a claim: in aperture vision there is no discrimination of meaningful ecological information.
I don't understand why that is true. Don't the windows, or children, or balloons give me meaningful ecological information? Don't the windows afford something like "see-out-ability"?
And don't the doors in the version of the Ames room belong afford "walk-through-ability?"