Sharks electrically detect things to eat and things that impede locomotion (Kalmijn, 1974). An edible living thing such as a flatfish differs in ionic com• position from the surrounding water, producing a bioelectric field partially modulated in the rhythm of the living thing's respiratory movements. A flatfish that has buried itself in the sand will be detectable by a shark swimming just above it. Reproducing the bioelectric field of the flatfish artificially, bypassing a current between two electrodes buried in the sand, invites the same predatory behavior. The shark digs tenaciously at the source of the field departing from the site when the act fails to reveal an edible thing (Kalmijn, 1971). Now there is no intelligible sense in which it can be claimed that the source ought to have appeared inedible if the shark's perception were free of error and if the shark's perception of affordances were direct. In the niche of the shark 'an edible thing' and 'electric field of, say, type F' are nomically related. To predicate of the shark (a) 'detects electric field of type F' and (b) 'takes to be an edible thing' is not to refer to two different states of affairs, one (viz. (b)) that is reached from the other (viz. (a)) by an inference. Rather, it is to make reference in two ways to a single state of affairs of the shark-niche system. The linking of (a) and (b) is not something that goes on in the "mind" of the shark, as the Establishment would have it. The linking of (a) and (b) is in the physics of an ecological world, namely, that system given by the complementation of the shark and its niche.Fourth, now, it is true, as TSRM note, that in their respective niches, these predicates are nomologically connected. Thus, we cannot tell by looking at the behavior of fish in their standard niches what they are perceiving. But by looking at how they behave outside their niches, we see that the fish are keying in on electric fields and red bodies, relying on the nomological connections. And we can see that in the non-standard environment, when the shark takes something (the electric field) to be an edible thing, it is mistaken. Similarly, in the non-standard environment, when the stickleback takes something (a fake fish) to be a male stickleback, it is mistaken. (Indeed, the non-standard conditions indicate how (a) and (b) are not the same. (a) is true, but (b) is false.) This is where EC seems to have trouble. How can it be that the shark picks up the (Gibsonian) information that there is something edible in the non-standard case, when there is nothing that is edible?
Friday, October 29, 2010
TSRM's Shark Example 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Indeed, the non-standard conditions indicate how (a) and (b) are not the same. (a) is true, but (b) is false.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. The point of the scope issue is that, as you say, "in their respective niches, these predicates are nomologically connected". So they are only not the same in the non-standard conditions.
Edible things and electric fields are nomologically connected in the niche.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, the shark "detects electric field of type F" and the shark "takes to be an edible thing" are one and the same thing.
You have to keep straight what is going on in the environment versus what is supposed to be going on in the organism.
But the shark is in the niche. That's why it was 'smart' to evolve electrical field F detection, because within that niche, that is the same thing as an 'edible thing'.
ReplyDeleteSo the shark gets to 'edible' by virtue of detecting 'F'; this isn't mixing up environment and organism, this is proposing a mechanism that supports how you go from one to the other.
It is partly "smart" in Runeson's sense, since it does key in on one feature of the environment, namely, only edible things generate field F. But, there remains the question of whether the shark's mechanism has only a few parts. This last is also part of Runeson's (messy) account of what a "smart mechanism" is.
ReplyDeleteI don't think TSRM are confused about what's nomologically connected in the environment and what is identical in the shark's brain (which is a component of the shark-niche system). They are just wrong, I think, about what's going on in the shark's brain.
I don't think TSRM are confused about what's nomologically connected in the environment and what is identical in the shark's brain (which is a component of the shark-niche system). They are just wrong, I think, about what's going on in the shark's brain.
ReplyDeleteOK. But if they're right about what's available to serve as information (ie a field F suitably specifying the affordance 'edible by a shark'), and the shark detects it, then you no longer need to invoke the kind of traditional mental operations to go from stimulus to meaning ('edible) because it's there already.
It's now up to us to establish empirically that this is what's happening. That's OK. Hard, but not impossible!
"if they're right about what's available to serve as information (ie a field F suitably specifying the affordance 'edible by a shark'), and the shark detects it, then you no longer need to invoke the kind of traditional mental operations to go from stimulus to meaning ('edible) because it's there already. "
ReplyDeleteThey wish. That's what I've been criticizing. If you identify the detecting and the taking, you don't have an explanation of the shark's quitting.
The shark quits only as more information comes in contradicting the initial information (plus also likely things like fatigue, etc; animals are pretty careful about expending energy, but of course this all needs to be perceived too so it's still just 'more information' supporting ending the search).
ReplyDeleteThis is just the core claim of the ecological approach. Gibson's suggestion was that if there are affordances AND information specifying affordances, then all you need to do is detect the information and you have the affordance by virtue of that detection, no mental gymnastics required. It's OK that you don't think this is true, but ecological psychology doesn't fall down at this hurdle - we have an answer (that you think is wrong). We'll fall or not as the data come in.
"The shark only quits ..."
ReplyDeleteThis can't be the whole story, because the shark also still takes there to be an edible fish. You keep failing to address the matter of the shark *both* taking there to be a fish present and taking there to be no fish present.
TSRM get into this problem because they take detecting F to be the same as taking there to be a fish.
Or, put it this way. I'm happy to say that the shark takes it that there is no fish, by picking up the information that there is no fish. Let that be the core of EP. The problem is that the shark also picks detects F, which TSRM say is the same thing as taking there to be a fish.
ReplyDeleteWhat one apparently needs mental gymnastics for is to have the shark "decide" what to do in the face of its contradictory takings.
a) The fact that one source of information is still specifying the fish would only be a problem if this was a FAP or something similar, because
ReplyDeleteb) we're back into Runeson/Ames Room territory. In a situation of competing information it's an empirical question which one the organism acts on.
Maybe this situation specifies a fish that's present (field F) but out of reach for some reason (all the later information). Plus we shouldn't forget this is a fake situation; maybe the shark stops searching because after exploration it detects some subtle difference in the electrical field and realises it's not chasing a fish? We'd need more information about the field to know for sure; but these questions are just the empirical EP programme.
"In a situation of competing information it's an empirical question which one the organism acts on."
ReplyDeletePrecisely. This is their example, but they have nothing to say about why the shark acts the way it does in the face of the competing information.
A cognitivist would have some mental gymnastics story to tell, and maybe TSRM would go for that, since they do allow for a role of reason in cognitive life. But, you don't seem inclined to go this way.
It's just an example. You'd actually need to run the studies to establish what exactly the shark used; the laws paper isn't an empirical paper.
ReplyDeleteBut, the example doesn't work. Even though they at least suggest they have an explanation of the shark behavior in this example, they don't.
ReplyDelete