Abstract
This article offers a reply to commentaries from Amy Kind, Casey O’Callaghan, and Wayne Wu. It features a defense and further analysis of perceptual malleability, as defended in Thinking and Perceiving. In turn, it considers the consequences of malleability for attention and the cognitive penetrability of perception, imagination and perceptual skills, and perceptual content and objectivity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This safe answer is compatible with the account I’ve given but, again, not entailed or required by it. And it’s worth noting that what one says here depends partly on one’s independent theory of the structure of perceptual content. And there are defensible views, for example indexical content views, that do include some index to the perceiver as constituents of content.
References
Albers, A. M., Kok, P., Toni, I., Dijkerman, H. C., & de Lange, F. P. (2013). Shared Representations for Working Memory and Mental Imagery in early visual cortex. Current Biology, 23, 1427–1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.065.
Buchsbaum, D., Bridgers, S., Weisberg, D., & Gopnik, A. (2012). The power of possibility: Causal learning, counterfactual reasoning, and pretend play. Phil Trans R Soc -Bio Sci, 367, 2202–2212.
Burge, T. (2010). Origins of Objectivity. Oxford University Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1988). Perceptual plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A reply to Jerry Fodor. Philosophy of Science, 55, 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/289425.
Craver-Lemley, C., & Arterberry, M. E. (2001). Imagery-induced interference on a visual detection task. Spatial Vision, 14, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856801300202887.
Farah, M. J. (1989). Mechanisms of imagery-perception interaction. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 15, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.15.2.203.
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘Top-Down’ Effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000965.
Fodor, J. A. (1988). A reply to Churchland’s `Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality’. Philosophy of Science, 55, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/289426.
Keogh, R., & Pearson, J. (2011). Mental imagery and visual working memory. PLoS One, 6(12), e29221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029221.
Pearson, Pearson, J., Clifford, C. W., & Tong, F. (2008). The functional impact of mental imagery on conscious perception. Curr. Biol., 18 (2008), pp. 982–986.
Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition?: The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002022.
Tong, F. (2013). Imagery and visual working memory: One and the same? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(10), 489–490.
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, W. (2011). What is conscious. Attention? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82, 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00457.x.
Wu, W. (2013). Visual spatial constancy and modularity: Does Intention Penetrate Vision? Philosophical Studies, 165, 647–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9971-y.
Wu, W. (2014). Attention. London: Routledge.
Wu, W. (2017). Shaking up the mind’s ground floor. The Cognitive Penetration of Visual Attention. Journal of Philosophy 114, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil201711411.
Acknowledgement
This symposium was presented at the APA Pacific Meeting in Vancouver, 2022; many thanks to all that were present at that event, and for their feedback. Thanks also to Colin Macleod for his editorship of this special issue.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Stokes, D. Perceptual malleability: attention, imagination, and objectivity. Philos Stud (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-02020-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-02020-7