Hi Eetu
RM: I think you hit the nail on the head. I am done and have “lost” this debate because my view of perception is completely different from yours. You think perceptions are of or about something in the real reality. I think perceptions are constructions based on real reality.
RM: You call my view of perception “instrumentalism”. I call it “constructivism”. I see perceptual functions as constructors of perceptions out of the raw material of real reality. I would call your view of perception “representationalism”, which sees perceptual functions as detectors that produce perceptions that represent the “somethings” (or the properties thereof) in real reality.
RM: These two different views of perception lead to two very different approaches to doing what I call “research on purpose” – research aimed at understanding the behavior of living control systems.
RM: Both views are consistent with the idea that behavior is the control of perception. But representationalism leads to a focus on questions of how accurately controlled perceptions represent the real world “somethings” that are being controlled. Constructivism, on the other hand, leads to a focus on what types of controlled perceptions are being constructed from the raw material of the real world.
RM: I believe that PCT is based on a constructivist view of perception. The research program described in Powers, 1979 and that I hoped to discuss over at Powers’ Model of a Research Program is all about determining what types of perceptions organisms control.
RM: So what I have “lost” is not just a philosophical argument about the nature of perception but I have also lost (actually, never gained) is anyone to work with me on developing the research program that Bill proposed. But I have been losing (or not gaining) this ever since I got into PCT. Fortunately, while Bill was here I was losing it right along with him, so it was easy, as the Dread Pirate Roberts said in the Princess Bride, to get used to disappointment.
Best regards
Rick