I suppose you're right; it doesn't fundamentally alter your point.
But the distinction between sensation and perception is actually relevant,
thinking about it.
I think you can have sensationless perception ( as when an object passes
behind another: the sensation of signals from said object ceases, but this
does not result in the perception that the object has ceased to exist).
I also think you can have perceptionless sensation; when asleep, many
sensations are present but, by and large, perception of the causes of the
sensations is absent.
Admittedly, the distinction is not 'hard', in that one might easily argue
that without any sensation *ever*, perception would hardly be possible.
There are many grey areas as well: if the object passes behind another, and
stops, one might 'forget' it after a while, at which point it's hard to
argue that perception of the object continues.
Without labouring the point too much, I think the two are distinct, and that
this distinction is valid for a wide variety of circumstances.
Actually, this does impinge on a mail I submitted a while ago, which reports
a disagreement I'm having with a quite distinguished academic who maintains
the classic scientific distinction of 'information' and 'patterns': the
former is what can be said to exist in the percipient, as a result of
cognitive processing of the sensations engendered by the latter. So
'information' doesn't exist in the world about us, only 'patterns'.
Thus, sensation is the neurological representation of the patterns around
us, whilst perception is the reconstruction (or just: 'construction', if you
will) of the information *about* the world.
Now, I'm not wholly happy with this classic formulation (and I'm not the
first! - ask elephant about Plato), but I am happy that there is some
utility in disambiguating 'perception' from 'sensation'.
As regards the perception of gravity, why, I experience it all the time in
the behaviour of objects (myself included); gravity pervades the environment
in which my kind evolved, and in which I spend most of my time, it's buried
deep in my learning about the world. But I'm not sure that I sense it in the
way I sense the presence of ambient light (perhaps because the presence of
ambient light isn't quite as constant?). I think the nearest thing to a
gravity sense I have would be in the inner ear, and in the sensors which
tell me what my skeleton is doing. But I'm left with the overwhelming
impression that 'gravity' is the description of what things do if they're
not held up: they go down. Except for clouds and the like.
So, as regards the dictionary definitions, well: the management reserve the
right to alter specifications without notice. I do think you perceive stuff
by using your senses (however many there may be). But I don't think that, in
humans, perception comes *from* sensation, but rather perception uses or
even 'causes' sensation. so there.
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lind" <Trickster@postmark.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 15 March 2001 06:33
Subject: Re: MD Glenn, Platt, Ant and the creation of patterns
> Peter Lennox wrote:
>
> > There may be a slight confusion here between 'sensation' and
> 'perception'.
> > The sensation most obviously stemming from gravity is on the soles
> of the
> > feet. The perception is that one is 'heavy'. Speaking as one who is
> the
> > wrong side of 40, I perceive gravity in myriad ways; I seem more
> attuned to
> > it every day![judging by the image in the mirror]
> > regards
> > ppl
>
> David writes: I'm confused. Sensation: awareness due to stimulation
>
> of a sense organ. Perception:awareness of the elements of
> environment
> through physical sensation. (both defnitions taken from
> Merriam-Webster) They both seem to indicate the same thing -
> awareness through the senses.
>
> Also, even if the two were different, my post still refers to the
> sensation of gravity on other parts of the body - the shoulders
> pressing down into the torso, etc)
>
> I guess it's all in how you perceive it :o)
>
> It's All Good
>
>
> David Lind
> Trickster@postmark.net
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Lind" <Trickster@postmark.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: 14 March 2001 15:48
> > Subject: Re: MD Glenn, Platt, Ant and the creation of patterns
> >
> >
> > > GLENN wrote:
> > > > > My previous agreement with Andrea about gravity not being
> > > empirical
> > > > > was incorrect. The feeling of force on your feet when you
> stand up
> > > > > is qualitative empirical evidence of gravity.
> > > >
> > > Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> > > > Think again Glenn. In which direction does the force act on your
> > > feet?
> > > > You feel a force UPWARDS, i.e. AGAINST the direction of gravity.
> You
> > > > don't ever feel the downward gravitational force itself.
> > >
> > > David Lind writes:
> > > Au contraire, mon frere - while you may feel the effects nore
> > > STRONGLY
> > > on your feet (or back if one lies down or seat if one is sitting)
> -
> > > if
> > > you focus your attention of the whole of your body, you CAN feel
> the
> > > downward "force" - try it. From where you are right now, notice
> the
> > > "pressure" you feel on your seat (i'm assuming) and then notice
> your
> > > shoulders - is there not a feeling of being pressed down?
> > >
> > > It's all good.
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > >
> > > David Lind
> > > Trickst
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:10 BST