Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 12, pp 3145–3164 | Cite as

Direct perception and the predictive mind

  • Zoe DraysonEmail author


Predictive approaches to the mind claim that perception, cognition, and action can be understood in terms of a single framework: a hierarchy of Bayesian models employing the computational strategy of predictive coding. Proponents of this view disagree, however, over the extent to which perception is direct on the predictive approach. I argue that we can resolve these disagreements by identifying three distinct notions of perceptual directness: psychological, metaphysical, and epistemological. I propose that perception is plausibly construed as psychologically indirect on the predictive approach, in the sense of being constructivist or inferential. It would be wrong to conclude from this, however, that perception is therefore indirect in a metaphysical or epistemological sense on the predictive approach. In the metaphysical case, claims about the inferential properties of constructivist perceptual mechanisms are consistent with both direct and indirect solutions to the metaphysical problem of perception (e.g. naïve realism, representationalism, sense datum theory). In the epistemological case, claims about the inferential properties of constructivist perceptual mechanisms are consistent with both direct and indirect approaches to the justification of perceptual belief. In this paper, I demonstrate how proponents of the predictive approach have conflated these distinct notions of perceptual directness and indirectness, and I propose alternative strategies for developing the philosophical consequences of the approach.


Direct perception Indirect perception Cognitive architecture Predictive coding Bayesian computation Perceptual inference 


  1. Boghossian, P., (2014). What is inference? Philosophical Studies, 169(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burr, C., & Jones, M. (2016). The body as laboratory: Prediction-error minimization, embodiment, and representation. Philosophical Psychology, 29(4), 586–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callender, C. (2011). Philosophy of science and metaphysics. In S. French & J. Saatsi (Eds.), Continuum companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 33-54). Continuum.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, A. (2012). Dreaming the whole cat: generative models, predictive processing, and the enactivist conception of perceptual experience. Mind, 121, 753–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. (2013a). Expecting the world: perception, prediction, and the origins of human knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 110(9), 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (2013b). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collier, J. (1996). On the necessity of natural kinds. In B. Rigg (Ed.), Natural kinds, laws of nature and scientific methodology (pp. 1–10). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Colombo, M., & Series, P. (2012). Bayes in the brain—On Bayesian modelling in neuroscience. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(3), 697–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drayson, Z. (2012). The uses and abuses of the personal/subpersonal distinction. Philosophical Perspectives, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drayson, Z. (2014). The personal/subpersonal distinction. Philosophy Compass, 9(5), 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drayson, Z. (2017a). Psychology, personal and subpersonal. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved Oct 23, 2017. doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-V044-1.
  13. Drayson, Z. (2017b). Modularity and the predictive mind. In T. Metzinger & W. Weise (Eds.), Philosophy and predictive processing. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. doi: 10.15502/9783958573130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan, F. (1998). Vision. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, Web. (July 19, 2016). doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-W047-1.
  15. Egner, T., & Summerfield, Christopher. (2013). Grounding predictive coding models in empirical neuroscience research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 210–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fish, W. (2004). The direct/indirect distinction in contemporary philosophy of perception. Essays in Philosophy, 5(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. (2000). A science of tuesdays. Review of The threefold cord: Mind, body and world by H. Putnam,  London review of books, 22(14), 21–22. Available from Accessed July 19, 2016.
  18. Friston, K. (2002). Functional integration and inference in the brain. Progress in Neurobiology, 68, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friston, K., & Kiebel, S. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1211–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fumerton, R. (2006). Direct realism, introspection, and cognitive science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(3), 680–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson, J. J. (1967). New reasons for realism. Synthese, 17(1), 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Gładziejewski, P. (2016). Predictive coding and representationalism. Synthese, 193(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hatfield, G. (2002). Perception as unconscious inference. In D. Heyer (Ed.), Perception and the physical world (pp. 113–143). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Helmholtz, H. (1878). The origin and meaning of geometrical axioms. Mind, 3(10), 212–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hohwy, J. (2007). Functional integration and the mind. Synthese, 159(3), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hohwy, J. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hohwy, J. (2014). The self-evidencing brain. Noûs. doi: 10.1111/nous.12062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiefer, A. (2017). Literal perceptual inference. In T. Metzinger & W. Wiese (Eds.), Philosophy and predictive processing. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. doi: 10.15502/9783958573185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Logue, H. (2011). The skeptic and the naïve realist. Philosophical Issues, 21(1), 268–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyons, J. (2016). Epistemological problems of perception. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition).
  33. Macpherson, F. (2015). Cognitive penetration and predictive coding: A commentary on Lupyan. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(4), 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mandelbaum, E. (2016). Attitude, inference, association: On the propositional structure of implicit bias. Noûs, 50(3), 629–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  36. McDowell, J. (1986) Singular thought and the extent of inner space. In P. Pettit & J. McDowell (Eds.), Subject, thought, and context (pp. 137–168). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  37. McDowell, J. (1998). Meaning, knowledge, and reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Orlandi, N. (2014). The innocent eye: Why vision is not a cognitive process. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Putnam, H. (1999). The threefold cord: mind, body and world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2006). Seeing and visualizing: It’s not what you think. A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, D., Ladyman, J., & Kincaid, H. (Eds.). (2013). Scientific metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schrenk, M. (2005). The Bookkeeper and the Lumberjack. Metaphysical vs. Nomological Necessity. In G. Abel (Ed.), Kreativität. XX. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie. Sektionsbeiträge Band 1.Universitätsverlag der Technischen Universität.Google Scholar
  43. Shand, J. (2014). Predictive mind, cognition, and chess. Analysis, 74(2), 244–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegel, S. (2017). The Rationality of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stich, S. P. (1978). Beliefs and subdoxastic states. Philosophy of Science, 45, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations