Experience and Reality

  • Davood Gozli


Three dimensions of experience are outlined. Experiences can vary in self-reference, valuation, and presence. Variation along these dimensions results partly from external factors and partly from our own thoughts and descriptions. Implications are drawn with respect to the subjective and objective domains, the nature of illusions, and description as a type of action. Through its descriptions, the experimental approach sets a uniform image of research participants with respect to self-reference, value, and presence.


Self Self-reference Value Visibility Invisibility Presence Absence Description Perspective Objective Subjective Intersubjective Thought Action 


  1. Bergner, R. M. (2005). World reconstruction in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59, 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergner, R. M. (2010). What is descriptive psychology? An introduction. In K. Davis, F. Lubuguin, & W. Schwartz (Eds.), Advances in descriptive psychology, vol. 9 (pp. 325–360). Ann Arbor, MI: Descriptive Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergner, R. M. (2017). What is a person? What is the self? Formulations for a science of psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, S. (2004). The topography of moral ecology. Theory & Psychology, 14, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Constable, M. D., Welsh, T. N., Huffman, G., & Pratt, J. (2019). I before U: Temporal order judgements reveal bias for self-owned objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, M. (2009). Mathematicians: An outer view of the inner world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. (2001). The second person. In Subjective, Intersubjective, objective: Collected essays by Donald Davidson (Vol. 3). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Ehrenstein, W. (1925). Versuch uber die beziehugen zwischen bewegungs und gestaltwarhrnehmung [Research on the relationship between motion and form perception]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 95, 305–352.Google Scholar
  13. Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle: A journey in quest of general psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, e229, 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2007). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Giorgi, A. (2013). Reflections on the status and direction of psychology: An external historical perspective. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 44(2), 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gozli, D. G. (2017a). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gozli, D. G. (2017b). The lackluster role of misperceptions in an enactivist paradigm. Constructivist Foundations, 13, 133–135.Google Scholar
  20. Gregg, A. P., Mahadevan, N., & Sedikides, C. (2017). The SPOT effect: People spontaneously prefer their own theories. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 996–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006). Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1367–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hibberd, F. (2005). Unfolding social constructionism. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hibberd, F. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34, 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, J. M., Green, C. D., Nicholls, A., & Liu, C. H. (1992). Illusions and knowing what is real. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kennedy, J. M., & Portal, A. (1990). Illusions: Can change of vantage point and invariant impressions remove deception? Ecological Psychology, 2(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krøjgaard, P. (2016). Keeping track of individuals: Insights from developmental psychology. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science., 50(2), 264–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamiell, J. T. (2000). A periodic table of personality elements? The “Big Five” and trait “psychology” in critical perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lundh, L. G. (2018). Psychological science within a three-dimensional ontology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mammen, J. (1993). The elements of psychology. In N. Engelsted, M. Hedegaard, B. Karpatschof, & A. Mortensen (Eds.), The societal subject (pp. 29–44). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mammen, J. (2016). Using a topological model in psychology: Developing sense and choice categories. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 196–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mammen, J. (2017). A new logical foundation for psychology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945, 2012). Phenomenology of Perception (D. Landes, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Neumann, A. (2016). Looking for a symphony. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50(2), 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  37. Noë, A. (2012). Varieties of presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Noë, A. (2015). Strange tools: Art and human nature. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  39. Ossorio, P. G. (2006). The behavior of persons. Ann Arbor, MI: Descriptive Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Palacios, A. G., Escobar, M. J., & Céspedes, E. (2017). Missing colors: The enactivist approach to perception. Constructivist Foundations, 13(1), 117–125.Google Scholar
  41. Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(1), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pérez-Álvarez, M. (2018). Psychology as a science of subject and comportment, beyond the mind and behavior. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52(1), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson, D. N. (2016). Explanation and the “brain sciences”. Theory & Psychology, 26(3), 324–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rubin, E. (1950). Visual figures apparently incompatible with geometry. Acta Psychologica, 7, 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  49. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  50. Seli, P., Schacter, D. L., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2017). Increasing participant motivation reduces rates of intentional and unintentional mind wandering. Psychological Research (Online first).Google Scholar
  51. Smedslund, J. (1997). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Sokolowski, R. (1978). Presence and absence: A philosophical investigation of language and being. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2015). The integrative self: How self-reference integrates perception and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 719–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tenbrink, T., Ross, R. J., Thomas, K. E., Dethlefs, N., & Andonova, E. (2010). Route instructions in map-based human–human and human–computer dialogue: A comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 21(5), 292–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomson, J. J. (2008). Normativity. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  57. Willett, A. B., Marken, R. S., Parker, M. G., & Mansell, W. (2017). Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wittgenstein, L. (1965). I: A lecture on ethics. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zahavi, D. (2014). Self and other: Exploring subjectivity, empathy, and shame. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davood Gozli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacao

Personalised recommendations