Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 525–543 | Cite as

Seeing emotions without mindreading them

  • Joulia Smortchkova
Article

Abstract

According to direct perception approaches we directly see others’ emotions, and by seeing emotions we immediately ascribe them to others. Direct perception is explicitly presented as an alternative account of mindreading (the ability to recognize and attribute mental states to others), but it also contains an implicit thesis about the extent of the reach of perception. In this paper emotion perception is defended: siding with the direct perception approach I claim that we can simply see emotions and not just low level features of the facial and bodily displays, but contra the direct perception approach I argue that seeing emotions is not sufficient for recognizing emotions as mental states in order to ascribe them to others.

Keywords

Emotions Perception Mindreading 

References

  1. Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (1994). Impaired recognition of emotion in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala. Nature, 372(6507), 669–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2003). Dissociable neural systems for recognizing emotions. Brain and Cognition, 52(1), 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aviezer, H., Hassin, R. R., Ryan, J., Grady, C., Susskind, J., Anderson, A., … & Bentin, S. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid?: Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19(7), 724–732. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02148.x.
  5. Aviezer, H., Trope, Y., & Todorov, A. (2012). Holistic person processing: faces with bodies tell the whole story. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, N. (2014). Seeing‐As in the light of vision science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1).Google Scholar
  7. Borgomaneri, S., Gazzola, V., & Avenanti, A. (2014). Transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals two functionally distinct stages of motor cortex involvement during perception of emotional body language. Brain Structure and Function, 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. Briscoe, R. (2011). Mental imagery and the varieties of amodal perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, A., Oruc, I., Fox, C. J., & Barton, J. J. (2008). Factors contributing to the adaptation aftereffects of facial expression. Brain Research, 1191, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (2004). Objects, places, and perception. Philosophical Psychology, 17(4), 471–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane, T. (1988). The waterfall illusion. Analysis, 48(3), 142–147.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, M. (1992). The role of the amygdala in fear and anxiety. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 15(1), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dretske, F. (1969). Seeing and knowing (Vol. 21). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dretske, F. (1973). Perception and other minds. Noûs, 7(March), 34–44.Google Scholar
  16. Farah, M. J. (2004). Visual agnosia. MIT press.Google Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1981). How direct is visual perception? Some reflections on Gibson’s “ecological approach”. Cognition, 9(2), 139–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S. (2007). Simulation trouble. Social Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. (2014). In your face: trascendence in embodied interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37(12), 1673–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gauthier, I., Behrmann, M., & Tarr, M. J. (2004). Are Greebles like faces? Using the neuropsychological exception to test the rule. Neuropsychologia, 42(14), 1961–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading (Vol. 144). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. I. (2009). Mirroring, simulating and mindreading. Mind & Language, 24(2), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goren, C. C., Sarty, M., & Wu, P. Y. (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics, 56(4), 544–549.Google Scholar
  28. Grill-Spector, K., Knouf, N., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). The fusiform face area subserves face perception, not generic within-category identification. Nature Neuroscience, 7(5), 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hawley, K., & Macpherson, F. (2011). The admissible contents of experience. Wiley- Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Hutto, D. D. (2008). Articulating and understanding the phenomenological manifesto. Abstracta – Linguagem, Mente E Ação, 10(19), 10–19.Google Scholar
  31. Jacob, P. (2011). The direct-perception model of empathy: a critique. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacob, P., & Jeannerod, M. (2003). Ways of seeing: The scope and limits of visual cognition. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Javadi, A. H., & Wee, N. (2012). Cross-category adaptation: objects produce gender adaptation in the perception of faces. PloS One, 7(9), e46079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., & Morton, J. (1991). Newborns’ preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition, 40(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object- specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanwisher, N. (2000). Domain specificity in face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 759–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kanwisher, N., & Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 361(1476), 2109–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelly, S. D. (2001). The non-conceptual content of perceptual experience: situation dependence and fineness of grain. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(3), 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krueger, J. (2014). Emotions and other minds. In R. Campe & J. Weber (Eds.), Interiority/Exteriority: Rethinking emotion. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Krueger, J., & Overgaard, S. (2012). Seeing subjectivity: defending a perceptual account of other minds. Protosociology.Google Scholar
  42. Leslie, A. M., & Scholl, B. J. (1999). Modularity, development and “theory of mind”. Mind & Language, 14(1), 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. Freeman.Google Scholar
  44. McKone, E., Crookes, K., Jeffery, L., & Dilks, D. D. (2012). A critical review of the development of face recognition: experience is less important than previously believed. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 174–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Michotte, A. (1954). La perception de la causalité. Publications universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  47. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Noë, A. (2005). Action in perception. The Mit Press.Google Scholar
  49. O’Callaghan, C. (2008). Object perception: vision and audition. Philosophy Compass, 3(4), 803–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peelen, M. V., & Downing, P. E. (2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(8), 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pell, P. J., & Richards, A. (2011). Cross-emotion facial expression aftereffects. Vision Research, 51(17), 1889–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2007). Things and places: How the mind connects with the world. The Mit Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rosa‐Salva, O., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2010). Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain‐specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face‐like stimuli. Developmental Science, 13(4), 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosch, E. (1983). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory, 73–86.Google Scholar
  55. Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Ross, B. (1990). The sympathetic magical law of similarity, nominal realism and neglect of negatives in response to negative labels. Psychological Science, 1(6), 383–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rutherford, M. D., Chattha, H. M., & Krysko, K. M. (2008). The use of aftereffects in the study of relationships among emotion categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 27.Google Scholar
  57. Said, C. P., Moore, C. D., Engell, A. D., Todorov, A., & Haxby, J. V. (2010). Distributed representations of dynamic facial expressions in the superior temporal sulcus. Journal of Vision, 10(5), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siegel, S. (2013). Replies to Campbell, Prinz, and Travis. Philosophical Studies, 163(3), 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slors, M. (2010). Neural resonance: between implicit simulation and social perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(3), 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spaulding, S. (2011). A critique of embodied simulation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 579–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Spaulding, S. (2015). On direct social perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive science, 14(1), 29–56.Google Scholar
  63. Spelke, E. (1994). Initial knowledge: six suggestions. Cognition, 50(1–3), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strawson, P. F. (1988). Perception and its objects. In J. Dancy (Ed.), Perceptual knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Treisman, A. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Treisman, A. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tsao, D. Y., Freiwald, W. A., Tootell, R. B., & Livingstone, M. S. (2006). A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science, 311(5761), 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tsuchiya, N., Moradi, F., Felsen, C., Yamazaki, M., & Adolphs, R. (2009). Intact rapid detection of fearful faces in the absence of the amygdala. Nature Neuroscience, 12(10), 1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Valentine, T. (1988). Upside‐down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 79(4), 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webster, M. A., & MacLeod, D. I. (2011). Visual adaptation and face perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1702–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wong, B., Cronin-Golomb, A., & Neargarder, S. (2005). Patterns of visual scanning as predictors of emotion identification in normal aging. Neuropsychology, 19(6), 739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Young, A. W. (1998). Face and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zahavi, D. (2011). Empathy and direct social perception: a phenomenological proposal. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Philosophie II Ruhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations