tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5469063338073162480.post5788058319552149486..comments2023-10-31T12:18:17.564+01:00Comments on PsyPhi > SciFi: Ontological and epistemological definitions of affordances (as per previous post). (2/5)_http://www.blogger.com/profile/02742471168384347161noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5469063338073162480.post-39479653106085439902013-03-20T14:42:24.784+01:002013-03-20T14:42:24.784+01:00It does however work if it is posited as a subject...It does however work if it is posited as a subjective experience of situations and mechanistic action selection, or, it can quite cleanly explain embodied attention and saliency of objects (subjectively experienced)_https://www.blogger.com/profile/02742471168384347161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5469063338073162480.post-88863458672709892382013-03-20T14:35:24.785+01:002013-03-20T14:35:24.785+01:00I found an example to go by to illustrate a point ...I found an example to go by to illustrate a point I'm trying to make. In Semin & Smith (p. 59) Glenberg posits "The perceived danger literally changes body physiology, which in turn changes the affordances. Thus, the food on the plate no longer affords eating. Instead, the situation now affords using the table as a buffer between the body and the danger...". Here then I would disagree that the affordance of the food to be eaten disappears. This to me is an error in logic, because; the antecedents in the situation become determined by their consequence. The food still is edible, its just that this results in an unwanted consequence, crucially, just because an actualization results in an unwanted consequence doesn't have a bearing on the ontological status of the food. This (non-)issue has similarities to the "failed ability" arguments mentioned in the above post._https://www.blogger.com/profile/02742471168384347161noreply@blogger.com