Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 33–47 | Cite as

Determinability of Perception as Homogeneity of Representation

  • Víctor M. Verdejo
Article

Abstract

Recent philosophical and empirical contributions strongly suggest that perception attributes determinable properties to its objects. But a characterisation of determinability via attributed properties is restricted to the level of content and does not capture the difference between perceptual belief and perception on this score. In this paper, I propose a formal way of cashing out the difference between determinable belief and perception. On the view presented here, determinability in perception distinctively involves homogeneous representation or representation that exhibits special sorts of formal type variability. This formal characterisation, I suggest, goes beyond traditional approaches to analog representation and parallels a baseline notion of analog computation.

References

  1. Blachowicz, J. 1997. Analog representation beyond mental imagery. Journal of Philosophy 94: 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, B. 2007. Perception and its objects. Philosophical Studies 132: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brogaard, B. 2015. Type 2 blindsight and the nature of visual experience. Consciousness and Cognition 32: 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burge, T. 2010. The origins of objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, A. 2005. Perception and conceptual content. In Con- temporary debates in epistemology, ed. E. Sosa and M. Steup, 231–250. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Carrasco, M., S. Ling, and S. Read. 2004. Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience 7: 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crane, T. 2009. Is perception a propositional attitude? The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 452–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dretske, F. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eliasmith, C. 2000. Is the brain analog or digital? The solution and its consequences for cognitive science. Cognitive Science Quarterly 1: 147–170.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J.A. 2008. Lot 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Funkhouser, E. 2006. The determinable-determinate relation. Nous 40: 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gobell, J., and M. Carrasco. 2005. Attention alters the appearance of spatial frequency and gap effect. Psychological Science 16: 644–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, N. 1968. The languages of art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  14. Green, E.J. 2015. A layered view of shape perception. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axv042.Google Scholar
  15. Haugeland, J. 1981. Analog and analog. Philosophical Topics 12: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heck, R. 2007. Are there different kinds of content? In Contemporary debates in the philosophy of mind, ed. J. Cohen and B. McLaughlin, 117–138. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. James, W. 1890/1950. The principles of psychology. New York: Dover Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston, W.E. 1921. Logic. Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Katz, M. 2008. Analog and digital representation. Minds & Machines 18: 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kulvicki, J. 2007. Perceptual content is vertically articulate. American Philosophical Quarterly 44: 357–369.Google Scholar
  21. Kulvicki, J. 2015. Analog representation and the parts principle. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6: 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. 1971. Analog and digital. Noûs 5: 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maley, C.J. 2011. Analog and digital, continuous and discrete. Philosophical Studies 155: 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nanay, B. 2010. Attention and perceptual content. Analysis 70: 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nanay, B. 2011. Ambiguous figures, attention and perceptual content. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10: 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nanay, B. 2015. Perceptual content and the content of mental imagery. Philosophical Studies 172: 1723–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Peacocke, C. 1989. Perceptual content. In Themes from Kaplan, ed. J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, 297–329. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peacocke, C. 1992. A study of concepts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Phillips, I.B. 2011. Perception and iconic memory. Mind & Language 26: 381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piccinini, G. 2008. Computers. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 59: 32–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piccinini, G. 2015. Physical computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Piccinini, G., and A. Scarantino. 2011. Information processing, computation, and cognition. Journal of Biological Physics 37: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piccinini, G., and S. Bahar. 2013. Neural computation and the computational theory of cognition. Cognitive Science 34: 453–488.Google Scholar
  36. Pour-El, M.B. 1974. Abstract computability and its relation to the general purpose analog computer. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 199: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prior, A. 1949. Determinables, determinates and determinants. Mind 58: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schonbein, W. 2014. Varieties of analog and digital representation. Minds & Machines. 24: 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sober, E. 1976. Mental representations. Synthese 33: 101–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sperling, G. 1960. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs 74: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stazicker, J. 2011. Attention, visual consciousness, and indeterminacy. Mind & Language 26: 56–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thau, M. 2002. Consciousness and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Verdejo, V.M. 2012. The visual language of thought: fodor vs. Pylyshyn. Teorema 31: 59–74.Google Scholar
  44. Verdejo, V.M. and D. Quesada 2011. Levels of explanation vindicated. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2: 77–88.Google Scholar
  45. Yeshurun, Y., and M. Carrasco. 1998. Attention improves or impairs visual performance by enhancing spatial resolution. Nature 396: 72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Lògica, Història i Filosofía de la CiènciaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations