Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 283–307 | Cite as

Object Files, Properties, and Perceptual Content

  • Santiago Echeverri
Article

Abstract

Object files are mental representations that enable perceptual systems to keep track of objects as numerically the same. How is their reference fixed? A prominent approach, championed by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Campbell, makes room for a non-satisfactional use of properties to fix reference. This maneuver has enabled them to reconcile a singularist view of reference with the intuition that properties must play a role in reference fixing. This paper examines Campbell’s influential defense of this strategy. After criticizing it, a new approach is sketched. The alternative view introduces representational contents to explain perceptual individuation. After arguing that those contents are not satisfactional, it is concluded that there is room for a third view of reference fixing that does not fit into the singularist/descriptivist dichotomy.

Keywords

Correctness Condition Perceptual Organization Perceptual State Representational Content Object File 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I presented earlier versions of this paper at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas-UNAM (7th May 2014), the 5th Workshop on Language, Cognition, and Context (23–25 May 2014), the University of Antioquia (29th May 2014), and the University of Geneva (25th September 2014). I am grateful to the audiences for their comments, especially to Santiago Amaya, Julien Deonna, Richard Dub, and Fabrice Teroni. I am also indebted to Santiago Arango, Reinaldo Bernal, Ariel Cecchi, Jérôme Dokic, Gregory Bochner, and an anonymous referee for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (research grant No. 100012-150265/1).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The present work has not been published before and is not under consideration for publication anywhere else. I declare that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, my work.

References

  1. Bach, K. 1987. Thought and reference. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. Block, N. 1995. On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 18(2): 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, B. 2011. Perception and its objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burge, T. 1977. Belief De Re. The Journal of Philosophy 74(6): 338–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burge, T. 2005. Disjunctivism and perceptual psychology. Philosophical Topics 33(1): 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burge, T. 2009. Five theses on De Re states and attitudes. In The philosophy of David Kaplan, ed. J. Almog and P. Leonardi, 246–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burge, T. 2010. Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. 2002. Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. 2007. The metaphysics of perception, Philosophical Issues 17: The Metaphysics of Epistemology: 1–15Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. 2009. Consciousness and reference. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind, ed. B.P. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann, and S. Walter, 648–662. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. 2011. Visual attention and the epistemic role of consciousness. In Attention: Philosophical and psychological essays, ed. C. Mole, D. Smithies, and W. Wu, 323–341. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. 2012. Perceiving the intended model. In Perception, realism, and the problem of reference, ed. A. Raftopoulos and P. Machamer, 96–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. 2013. Susanna Siegel’s the contents of visual experience. Philosophical Studies 163: 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carey, S. 2009. The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chastain, C. 1975. Reference and context. In Language, mind, and knowledge, ed. K. Gunderson, 194–269. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  16. Davies, M. 1992. Perceptual content and local supervenience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92: 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennett, D.C. 1978. Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dickie, I. 2010. We are acquainted with ordinary things. In New essays on singular thought, ed. R. Jeshion, 213–245. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fine, K. 2007. Semantic relationism. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fish, W. 2009. Perception, hallucination, and illusion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fodor, J.A. 2008. LOT 2: the language of thought revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang, L., and H. Pashler. 2007. A Boolean map theory of visual attention. Psychological Review 114: 599–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, F. 2012. Michael Tye on perceptual content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(1): 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., A. Treisman, and B. Gibbs. 1992. The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology 24: 175–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanizsa, G., and W. Gerbino. 1976. Convexity and symmetry in figure-ground organization. In Art and artefacts, ed. M. Henle, 25–32. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (1781/1787) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. 1998.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, D. 1977. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, ed. J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, 481–563. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, M. 2007. Visual awareness of properties. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75(2): 298–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kripke, S.A. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, M.G.F. 2006. On being alienated. In Perceptual experience, ed. T. Gendler and J. Hawthorne, 354–410. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthen, M. 2010. On the diversity of auditory objects. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGinn, C. 1982. The character of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pautz, A. 2011. What are the contents of experiences? In The admissible contents of experience, ed. K. Hawley and F. Macpherson, 114–138. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson, M.A. 2003. On figures, grounds, and varieties of surface completion. In Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives, ed. R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, and C. Olson, 87–116. Mahwah: LEA.Google Scholar
  35. Peterson, M.A., and R. Kimchi. 2013. Perceptual organization in vision. In Handbook of cognitive psychology, ed. D. Reisberg, 9–31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pylyshyn, Z.W. 2007. Things and places: How the mind connects with the world. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Recanati, F. 2012. Mental files. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, B. 1912. The problems of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schellenberg, S. 2014. The relational and representational character of perceptual experience. In Does perception have content? ed. B. Brogaard. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Searle, J.R. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shoemaker, S. 1980. Causality and properties. In Time and cause, ed. P. Van Inwagen, 109–135. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegel, S. 2010. The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Spelke, E.S. 1990. Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science 14: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tye, M. 2011. The admissible contents of visual experience. In The admissible contents of experience, ed. K. Hawley and F. Macpherson, 172–193. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagemans, J., J.H. Elder, M. Kubovy, S.E. Palmer, M.A. Peterson, M. Sinigh, and R. von der Heydt. 2012. A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin 138(6): 1172–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculté des Lettres, Département de PhilosophieUniversité de GenèveGenève 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations