Enactive theories of imagery may be seen as modern successors to the *motor theories* of the early twentieth century. They depend the idea that *perception* is not mere passive receptivity (or even receptivity plus inner processing), but a form of action, something *done* by the organism. The literature is legion. The perceiving organism is not merely registering but exploring and *asking questions* of its environment, actively and intentionally (though not necessarily with conscious volition) seeking out the answers in the sensory stimuli that surround it. Imagery is then experienced when someone persists in acting out the seeking of some particular information even though they cannot reasonably expect it to be there. We have imagery of, say, a cat, when we go through (some of) the motions of looking at something and determining that it is a cat, even though there is no cat (and perhaps nothing relevant at all) there to be seen. Visually imagining a cat is seeing nothing-in-particular *as* a cat.
I'd have a bet that Facil could sketch my cat, a fluffy black and white ball of haughty 'evil' with claws and purring schemer leading me and two dogs a merry dance of Salome to get a midnight feast share. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
