Most psychologists studying perception and cognition today argue that Gibson’s radio-metaphor is flawed because a brain, unlike a radio, identifies a “signal” not directly, but in a memory-dependent way.
The language used so far may have seemed too removed from the number-crunching chores of experimental science to be anything else than a whimsical indulgence.
The idea that any system can be said to have its own ontology – its own distinctive way of carving up reality – means that its structure distinguishes between “inputs” and couples these to certain “outputs”.
