Michaels (2000) suggested that vision for perception can and should be sepa
rated from vision for action. Methodological, logical, and empirical ground
s for this conclusion are critically discussed. Data are presented that per
ception and action are not 2 different entities, and therefore, they can ne
ither follow each other (the view that Michaels rejects) nor run in paralle
l (the view she appears to accept). They are 2 aspects of the same reality
of behavioral control. Telling about perception is not perception it self;
brains disconnected from an efficient speech apparatus may be able to extra
ct environmental information. What is often referred to as dissociation be
tween perception and action is not a fiction; rather, such cases indicate i
mportant distinctions between different classes of behavioral control. All
classes, however, involve both perception and action.