Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 319–329 | Cite as

Does the ‘Missing Fundamental’ Require an Inferentialist Explanation?

  • J. A. Judge
Article

Abstract

In arbitrating between representational and relational theories of perception, perceptual illusions—cases in which a subject’s perceptual experience diverges from the way the world really is—constitute an important battleground. The debate has, however, been dominated by discussions of visual perception. In attempting to extend the debate to audition, it is appropriate to start by considering what is thought to be a key case of auditory illusion. I consider the phenomenon of the ‘missing fundamental’, as well as examining a notion that is often deployed by representationalists to explain it—namely, perceptual inference. Though it is frequently deployed as an explanatory concept by inferentialists, the notion of perceptual inference is somewhat opaque. Here, I formulate a ‘job description’ for perceptual inference, involving rule-following. I then identify two sets of cases that commonly prompt the invocation of perceptual inference: namely, cases of perceptual illusion, and cases of veridical perception where the perceptual content outstrips the information present in the stimulus. I then argue that an appeal to perceptual inference is unnecessary, in the case of the missing fundamental, for two reasons. Firstly, the missing fundamental is not, after all, a clear candidate for the ascription of inferential capacity to the auditory system: it is neither an illusion, nor is it the case that the stimulus is crucially impoverished. That is, it submits to a ‘direct’ explanation. Secondly, given the adequacy of a simpler explanation, and the difficulty between distinguishing between real rule-following and the mere appearance of it, I argue that we should avoid ascribing inferential capacity to the auditory system. I close by considering objections, and offering replies.

Keywords

Auditory perception Rule-following Auditory scene analysis Representation Inference 

References

  1. Blakemore C (1990) Understanding images in the brain. In: Barlow H, Blakemore C, Weston-Smith M (eds) Images and understanding. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Boghossian P (2008) Epistemic rules. J Philos 105(9):472–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boghossian P (2014) What is inference? Philos Stud 169(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boghossian P, Velleman JD (1989) Color as a secondary quality. Mind 389:81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bregman A (1993) Auditory scene analysis: hearing in complex environments. In: McAdams S, Bigand E (eds) Thinking in sound: the cognitive psychology of human audition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bregman A (1994) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bregman A (2008) Auditory scene analysis. In: Basbaum A, Shepherd G, Westheimer G (eds) The senses: a comprehensive reference. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett D (1978) A cure for the common code? In: Dennett D (ed) Brainstorms: philosophical essays of mind and psychology. Bradford Books, MontgomeryGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennett D (2007) Philosophy as naïve anthropology: comment on Bennett and Hacker. In: Bennett M, Dennett D, Hacker P, Searle JR (eds) Neuroscience and philosophy: brain, mind, and language. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch D (2013) Grouping mechanisms in music. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music, 3rd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fodor J (2008) LOT 2: the language of thought revisited. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fodor J, Pylyshyn ZW (1981) How direct is visual perception? Some reflections on Gibson’s ‘ecological approach’. Cognition 9(2):139–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelfand S (1998) Hearing: an introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Houtsma AJM (1995) Pitch perception. In: Moore BCJ (ed) Hearing. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  15. Kripke SA (1982) Wittgenstein on rules and private language: an elementary exposition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Levitin DJ (2006) This is your brain on music: the science of a human obsession. Dutton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Maloney LT, Mamassian P (2009) Bayesian decision theory as a model of human visual perception: testing Bayesian transfer. Vis Neurosci 26(01):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore BCJ (2003) An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 5th edn. Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Callaghan C (2007) Sounds: a philosophical theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ohm GW (1843) Über die Definition des Tones nebst daran geknupfter Theorie der Sirene und ähnlicher tonbildender Vorrichtungen. Annalen für Physik und Chemie 59:513–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orlandi N (2013) Embedded seeing: vision in the natural world. Noûs 47(4):727–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orlandi N (2014) The innocent eye: why vision is not a cognitive process. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Oxenham AJ (2013) The perception of musical tones. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music, 3rd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Palmer SE (1999) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Patel AD, Demorest SM (2013) Comparative music cognition: cross-species and cross-cultural studies. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music, 3rd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Pierce J (1999) The nature of musical sound. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramsey W (2007) Representation reconsidered. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rock I (1983) The logic of perception. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Rock I (1997) Indirect perception. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  31. Schouten JF (1938) The perception of subjective tones. Proceedings of the Konigliche Akademie von Wetenschap 43:991–999Google Scholar
  32. Seebeck A (1841) Beobachtungen über einige Bedingungen der Entstehung von Tönen. Annalen für Physik und Chemie 53:417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verschuure J, van Meeteren A (1975) The effect of intensity on pitch. Acustica 32(1):33–44Google Scholar
  34. Wright C (2014) Comment on Paul Boghossian, ‘The nature of inference’. Philos Stud 169(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MusicUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.St John’s CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations