Date: 30 Oct 2012
Causation in Perception: A Challenge to Naïve Realism
- Michael Sollberger
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Defending a form of naïve realism about visual experiences is quite popular these days. Those naïve realists who I will be concerned with in this paper make a central claim about the subjective aspects of perceptual experiences. They argue that how it is with the perceiver subjectively when she sees worldly objects is literally determined by those objects. This way of thinking leads them to endorse a form of disjunctivism, according to which the fundamental psychological nature of seeings and hallucinations is distinct. I will oppose their central claim by defending a version of the so-called ‘causal argument’, which dwells on ideas about causation and explanation in perception. The aim of this discussion is to highlight that the subjective aspects of perceptual experiences cannot be explained in naïve realist terms. Instead, it will be argued that one needs to appeal to a mental factor which does not involve worldly objects as constituents, and which is common to seeings and hallucinations.
Brewer, B. 2008. How to account for illusion? In Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge, ed. A. Haddock and F. Macpherson, 168–179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burge, T. 2005. Disjunctivism and perceptual psychology. Philosophical Topics 33(1): 1–78.
Byrne, A., and H. Logue. 2008. Either/Or. In Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge, ed. A. Haddock and F. Macpherson, 57–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J. 2002. Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRef
Campbell, J. 2010. Demonstrative reference, the relational view of experience and the proximality principle. In New essays on singular thought, ed. R. Jeshion, 193–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Diederich, N.J., F. Alesch, and C.G. Goetz. 2000. Visual hallucinations induced by deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Clinical Neuropharmacology 23(5): 287–289.CrossRef
Fish, W. 2009. Perception, hallucination, and illusion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Gazzaniga, M.S., R.B. Ivry, and G.R. Mangun. 2002. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Jackson, F. 1998. From metaphysics to ethics. Oxford: Clarendon.
Johnston, M. 2004. The obscure object of hallucination. Philosophical Studies 120(1–3): 113–183.CrossRef
Kennedy, M. (forthcoming). Explanation in good and bad experiential cases. In Hallucination, eds. Macpherson F., & Platchias D. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Martin, M.G.F. 1997. The reality of appearances. In Thought and ontology, ed. M. Sainsbury, 81–106. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Martin, M.G.F. 2004. The limits of self-awareness. Philosophical Studies 120(1–3): 37–89.CrossRef
Peacocke, C. 1993. Externalist explanation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93: 203–230.
Penfield, W., and P. Perot. 1963. The brain’s record of auditory and visual experience: A final summary and discussion. Brain 86: 595–696.CrossRef
Robinson, H. 1994. Perception. London: Routledge.
Shoemaker, S. 1980. Causality and properties. In Time and cause: Essays presented to Richard Taylor, ed. P. van Inwagen, 109–135. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.
Smith, M., and D. Stoljar. 1998. Global response-dependence and noumenal realism. The Monist 81: 85–111.
Sollberger, M. 2008. Naïve realism and the problem of causation. Disputatio 3(25): 1–19.
Williamson, T. 1995. Is knowing a state of mind? Mind 104(415): 533–565.CrossRef
- Causation in Perception: A Challenge to Naïve Realism
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Volume 3, Issue 4 , pp 581-595
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Humanities, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK