Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 4, pp 1705–1713 | Cite as

Sensory malfunctions, limitations, and trade-offs

  • Todd GansonEmail author
Article
  • 239 Downloads

Abstract

Teleological accounts of sensory normativity treat normal functioning for a species as a standard: sensory error involves departure from normal functioning for the species, i.e. sensory malfunction. Straightforward reflection on sensory trade-offs reveals that normal functioning for a species can exhibit failures of accuracy. Acknowledging these failures of accuracy is central to understanding the adaptations of a species. To make room for these errors we have to go beyond the teleological framework and invoke the notion of an ideal observer from vision science. The notion of an ideal observer also sheds light on the important distinction between sensory malfunction and sensory limitation.

Keywords

Sensory error Representation Visual illusion Sensory malfunction Dretske Matthen Sensory limitation Sensory trade-off Sensory ecology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has been significantly improved thanks to expert feedback from two anonymous referees. I greatly appreciate their advice and patience. I also wish to thank Marc Artiga and Ben Bronner for valuable written comments on an earlier version of this paper. Finally, thanks to Dorit Ganson for encouragement and discussion of the issues.

References

  1. Artiga, M. (2013). Reliable misrepresentation and teleosemantics. Disputatio, 37, 265–281.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, H., & Friston, K. J. (2012). Free-energy and illusions:The Cornsweet effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 43.Google Scholar
  3. Chittka, L., Skorupski, P., & Raine, N. (2009). Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corney, D., & Lotto, R. (2007). What are lightness illusions and why do we see them? PLoS Computational Biology, 3, e180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cronin, T., Johnsen, S., Marshall, N., & Warrant, E. (2014). Visual ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dretske, F. (1986). Misrepresentation. In R. Bogan (Ed.), Belief: Form, content, and function. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ganson, T., & Ganson, D. (2010). Everyday thinking about bodily sensations. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganson, T. (2013). Are color experiences representational? Philosophical Studies, 166, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauker, C. (2011). Words and images: An essay on the origin of ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geisler, W. (2003). Ideal observer analysis. In L. Chalupa & J. Werner (Eds.), The Visual Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Geisler, W. (2011). Contributions of ideal observer theory to vision research. Vision Research, 51, 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geisler, W. S., & Kersten, D. (2002). Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilchrist, A. (2006). Seeing black and white. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1992). Indication and adaption. Synthese, 92, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laughlin, S. (2001). Energy as a constraint on the coding and processing of sensory information. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lupyan, G. (2015). Cognitive penetrability of perception in the age of prediction: Predictive systems are penetrable systems. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 558.Google Scholar
  19. Matthen, M. (1988). Biological functions and perceptual content. Journal of Philosophy, 85, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthen, M. (2010). How things look (and What Things Look That Way). In B. Nanay (Ed.), Perceiving the World (pp. 226–253). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mendelovici, A. (2013). Reliable misrepresentation and tracking theories of mental representation. Philosophical Studies, 165, 421–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendelovivi, A. (2016). Why tracking theories should allow for clean cases of reliable misrepresentation. Disputatio, 8, 57–92.Google Scholar
  23. Neander, K. (1995). Misrepresentation and malfunction. Philosophical Studies, 79, 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neander, K. (2013). Toward an informational teleosemantics. In D. Ryder, J. Kingsbury, & K. Williford (Eds.), Millikan and her critics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Niven, J., Anderson, J., & Laughlin, S. (2007). Fly Photoreceptors Demonstrate Energy-Information Trade-Offs in Neural Coding. PLoS Biology, 5, e91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Orlowski, J., Harmening, W., & Wagner, H. (2012). Night vision in barn owls: Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity under dark adaptation. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogers, B. (2010). Stimuli, information, and the concept of illusion. Perception, 39, 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shin, S. K. (2003). Meaning and normativity: A study of teleosemantics (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2003/shinsk032/shinsk032.pdf.
  29. Stevens, M. (2013). Sensory ecology, behavior, and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P., & Adelson, E. H. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 598–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOberlin CollegeOberlinUSA

Personalised recommendations