Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 325–346 | Cite as

Ambiguous figures and the spatial contents of perceptual experience: a defense of representationalism

  • René Jagnow


Representationalists hold that the phenomenal character of a perceptual experience is identical with, or supervenes on, an aspect of its representational content. As such, representationalism could be disproved by a counter-example consisting of two experiences that have the same representational content but differ in phenomenal character. In this paper, I discuss two recently proposed counter-examples to representationalism that involve ambiguous or reversible figures. I pursue two goals. My first, and most important, goal is to show that the representationalist can offer plausible responses to both counter-examples. My second goal is to show the implications of these responses for the nature of the spatial representational contents of perceptual experiences.


Perceptual experience Representationalism Spatial representational content Mach figure 



I want to thank the two reviewers for this journal. Their comments helped me to improve the paper greatly.


  1. Attneave, F. (1968). Triangles as ambiguous figures. The American Journal of Psychology, 81, 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertamini, M., Martinovic, J., & Wuerger, S. M. (2008). Integration of ordinal and metric cues in depth perception. Journal of Vision, 8(2), 1–12. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burge, J., Peterson, M. A., & Palmer, S. E. (2005). Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception. Journal of Vision, 5, 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, A. (2001). Intentionalism defended. Philosophical Review, 110(2), 199–240.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. (1994). Past, space, and self. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (2004). The representational character of experience. In B. Leiter (Ed.), The future of philosophy (pp. 153–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. (2006). Perception and the fall from Eden. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 49–125). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Danilova, M. V., & Mollon, J. D. (2006). The comparison of spatially separated colors. Vision Research, 46, 823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, G. (1982). In J. McDowell (Ed.), The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Funkhouser, E. (2006). The determinable–determinate relation. Nous, 40, 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grush, R. (1998), Skill and spatial content, Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6Google Scholar
  14. Grush, R. (2000). Self, world, and space: the meaning and mechanisms of ego- and allocentric spatial representation. Brain and Mind, 1, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harman, G. (1990). The intrinsic quality of experience. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphreys, G. W. (1983). Reference frames and shape perception. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 309–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and experience. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Mach, E. (1897/1959). The analysis of sensations, Translated by C. M. Williams, New York: DoverGoogle Scholar
  19. Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1999). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Macpherson, F. (2006). Ambiguous figures and the content of experience. Nous, 40(1), 82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Marr, D., & Nishihara, H. K. (1978). Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceeding of the Royal Society London B, 200, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nanay, B. (2010). Attention and perceptual content. Analysis, 70, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nickel, B. (2007). Against intentionalism. Philosophical Studies, 136, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmer, S. E. (1975). The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory & Cognition, 3(5), 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer, S. E. (1980). What makes triangles point: local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles. Cognitive Psychology, 9(4), 441–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer, S. E. (1985). The role of symmetry in shape perception. Special issue: seeing and knowing. Acta Psychologica, 59(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer, S. E. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Palmer, S. E. (1990). Modern theories of gestalt perception. Mind and Language, 5(4), 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer, S. E. (1992). Reference frames in the perception of spatial structure. In H.-G. Geissler, S. T. Link, & J. T. Townsend (Eds.), Cognition, information processing and psychophysics: Basic issues. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Palmer, S. E., & Brooks, J. L. (2008). Edge-region grouping in figure-ground organization and depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34(6), 1353–1371.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, S. E., & Bucher, N. M. (1981). Configural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(1), 88–114.Google Scholar
  34. Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Peacocke, C. (2008). Sensational properties: theses to accept and theses to reject. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 62, 7–24.Google Scholar
  36. Quinlan, P. T., & Humphreys, G. W. (1993). Perceptual frames of reference and two-dimensional shape recognition: further examination of internal axes. Perception, 22, 1343–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raftopoulos, R. (2007). Ambiguous figures and representationalism. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9743-1. 2010.Google Scholar
  38. Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Rock, I. (1997). Indirect perception. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Rock, I., & DiVita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object-perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rossi, E. A., & Roorda, A. (2010). The relationship between visual resolution and cone spacing in the human fovea. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 156–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell Wahrgenommene figuren. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  44. Sekuler, A. B. (1996). Axis of elongation can determine reference frames for object perception. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 270–278.Google Scholar
  45. Sekuler, A. B., & Swimmer, M. B. (2000). Interactions between symmetry and elongation in determining reference frames for object perception. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 42–55.Google Scholar
  46. Shoemaker, S. (1994). Phenomenal character. Nous, 28(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  48. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  49. Wiser, M. (1981). The role of intrinsic axes in shape recognition, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (unpublished).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations