Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 721–741 | Cite as

Rational Relations Between Perception and Belief: The Case of Color

Article
  • 240 Downloads

Abstract

The present paper investigates the first step of rational belief acquisition. It, thus, focuses on justificatory relations between perceptual experiences and perceptual beliefs, and between their contents, respectively. In particular, the paper aims at outlining how it is possible to reason from the content of perceptual experiences to the content of perceptual beliefs. The paper thereby approaches this aim by combining a formal epistemology perspective with an eye towards recent advances in philosophy of cognition. Furthermore the paper restricts its focus, it concentrates on the case of color perception and perceptual beliefs about color.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to two exceedingly helpful referees of this journal. In addition, I would like to thank Igor Douven, Anna-Maria Asunta Eder and Nina Poth for their invaluable feedback on various versions of this paper and Ben Young for proofreading the manuscript. Research on this paper has been generously supported by an Emmy Noether Grant from the German Research Council (DFG), reference number BR 5210/1-1.

Forthcoming in Review of Philosophy and Psychology

References

  1. Balcetis, E., and D. Dunning. 2010. Wishful seeing: more desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science 21: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermúdez, J., and A. Cahen. 2015. Nonconceptual mental content, ed. Zalta E.N. Stanford, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition).Google Scholar
  3. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2003. Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bradley, D. 2015. A critical introduction to formal epistemology. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, B. 1999. Perception and reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brössel, P. 2012. Rethinking bayesian confirmation theory–steps towards a new theory of confirmation. Halifax: Unpublished PhD-thesis (Konstanz).Google Scholar
  7. Brössel, P. 2013. The problem of measure sensitivity redux. Philosophy of Science 80: 378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brössel, P. 2015. On the role of explanatory and systematic power in scientific reasoning. Synthese 192: 3877–3913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brössel, P., A.-M. Eder, and F. Huber. 2013. Evidential support and instrumental rationality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87: 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruner, J., and C. Goodman. 1947. Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 42: 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruner, J., and L. Postman. 1949. On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of Personality 18: 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnap, R. 1950. [1965, second edition]. Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carnap, R. 1971a. A basic system of inductive logic, Part I. In Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability (Vol. I), eds. Carnap R. and Jeffrey R.C. California, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carnap, R. 1971b. Inductive logic and rational decisions. In Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability (Vol. I), eds. Carnap R. and Jeffrey R. C. California, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Churchland, P. 1992. A neurocomputational perspective: the nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Churchland, P. 1998. Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: the Fodor/Lepore challenge answered. Journal of Philosophy 95: 5–32.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, A. 2013. Whatever next? predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36: 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colombo, M., and P. Seriès. 2012. Bayes in the brain. On Bayesian modelling in neuroscience. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 63: 697–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crupi, V., and K. Tentori. 2012. A second look at the logic of explanatory power (with two novel representation theorems). Philosophy of Science 79: 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson, D. 1986. A coherence theory of knowledge and truth. In Truth and Interpretation, ed. LePore E., 307–319. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. De Finetti, B. 1937. La Prévision: Ses Lois Logiques, Ses Sources Subjectives. Annales de Ìnstitut Henri Poincaré 7: 1–68. translated as: Foresight. Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources. In H. E. Kyburg, Jr. and H. E. Smokler (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. Decock, L., and I. Douven. 2014. What is graded membership?. Noûs 48: 653–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Douven, I. 2015. The epistemology of indicative conditionals: formal and empirical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Douven, I., and W. Meijs. 2007. Measuring coherence. Synthese 156: 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Douven, I., et al. 2013. Vagueness: a conceptual spaces approach. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42: 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dretske, F. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, G. 1982. The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Firestone, C., and B. Scholl. 2015. Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ’top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.Google Scholar
  29. Fitelson, B. 1999. The plurality of bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66: S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fitelson, B. 2001. Studies in bayesian confirmation theory. Madison: PhD. Dissertation University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  31. Fitelson, B. 2003. A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Friston, K. 2009. The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Science 13: 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gauker, C. 2011. Words and images: an essay on the origin of ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual spaces–the geometry of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gärdenfors, P. 2014. Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art. Hackett.Google Scholar
  37. Hartmann, S., and J. Sprenger. 2010. In Bernecker, S., Pritchard, D. (eds.): Routledge Companion to Epistemology:609–620.Google Scholar
  38. Heck, R. 2000. Nonconceptual content and the space of reasons. Philosophical Review 109: 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hohwy, J. 2013. The predictive mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Joyce, J. 1999. Foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keynes, J. 1921. A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Knill, D., and A. Pouget. 2004. The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences 27: 712–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Knill, D., and W. Richards. 1996. Perception as bayesian inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Leitgeb, H. 2012a. A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part A. Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 26–84.Google Scholar
  46. Leitgeb, H. 2012b. A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part B. Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 85–121.Google Scholar
  47. Leitgeb, H. 2017. The stability of belief: how rational belief coheres with probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leitgeb, H., and R. Pettigrew. 2010a. An objective justification of Bayesianism I: The consequences of minimizing inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science 77: 201–235.Google Scholar
  49. Leitgeb, H., and R. Pettigrew. 2010b. An objective justification of Bayesianism II: The consequences of minimizing inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science 77: 236–272.Google Scholar
  50. Levin, D., and M. Banaji. 2006. Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135: 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lupyan, G. 2012. Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054.
  52. Lyons, J. 2011. Circularity, reliability, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Issues 21: 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Macpherson, F. 2012. Cognitive penetration of colour experience. Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84: 24–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Macpherson, F. 2015. Cognitive penetration and nonconceptual content, eds. Zeimbekis J. and Raftopoulos A., 331–358.Google Scholar
  55. Marchi, F. 2017. Attention and cognitive penetrability: The epistemic consequences of attention as a form of metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition 47: 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: W. H. Freedman and Company.Google Scholar
  57. Mervis, C., and E. Rosch. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32: 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and World. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mole, C. 2015. Attention and cognitive penetration. In The cognitive penetrability of perception. New philosophical perspectives, eds. Raftopoulos A. and Zeimbekis J., 218–238. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Newen, A. 2016. Defending the liberal-content view of perceptual experience: direct social perception of emotions and person impressions. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1030-3.
  61. Peacocke, C. 1992. A study of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Peacocke, C. 2001. Does perception have a nonconceptual content? Journal of Philosophy 98: 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Popper, K. 1935. Die logik der forschung. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pryor, J. 2000. The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs 34: 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Putnam, H. 1981. Reason: Truth, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pylyshyn, Z. 1999. Is vision continuous with cognition?: The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Science 22: 341–365.Google Scholar
  67. Raftopoulos, A. 2001. Is perception informationally encapsulated? The issue of the theory-ladenness of perception. Cognitive Science 25: 423–451.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2503_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raftopoulos, A. 2009. Cognition and perception: How do psychology and neural science inform philosophy?. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ramsey, F. 1926. Truth and probability. In Foundations of mathematics and other essays, ed. R. B. Braithwaite, 156–198. London, Routledge & P. Kegan. 1931.Google Scholar
  70. Rao, R., B. Olshausen, and M. Lewicki. 2002. Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function. MIT press.Google Scholar
  71. Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosch, E. 1978. Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory, ed. Scholnik E.Google Scholar
  73. Salin, P., and J. Bullier. 1995. Corticocortical connections in the visual system: Structure and function. Physiological Reviews 75(1): 107–154.Google Scholar
  74. Schupbach, J., and J. Sprenger. 2011. The logic of explanatory power. Philosophy of Science 78: 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Siegel, S. 2005. The contents of perception. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/perception-contents.
  76. Siegel, S. 2010. The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Siegel, S. 2012. Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs 46: 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Siegel, S. 2015. The contents of perception, ed. Zalta E.N. Stanford, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  79. Siegel, S. 2017. The rationality of perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Skyrms, B. 1980. Higher order degrees of belief. In Prospects for Pragmatism, ed. Mellor D. H., 109–137. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stalnaker, R. 1998. What might nonconceptual content be? Philosophical Issues 9: 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Strevens, M. 2008. Notes on bayesian confirmation theory. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/strevens/BCT/BCT.pdf, retrieved September 9th, 2017.
  83. Stokes, D. 2015. Towards a consequentialist understanding of cognitive penetration, eds. Zeimbekis J. and Raftopoulos A., 75–100.Google Scholar
  84. Toribio, J. 2015. Visual experience: rich but impenetrable. Synthese 1–18.Google Scholar
  85. van Fraassen, B. 1983. Calibration: A frequency justification for personal probability. In Physics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis, eds. R. Cohen and L. Laudan, 295–319. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  86. von Mises, R. 1931. Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und ihre Anwendungen in der Statistik und theoretischen Physik. Leipzig: Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
  87. Vetter, P., and A. Newen. 2014. Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition 27: 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. White, R. 2006. Problems for dogmatism. Philosophical Studies 131: 525–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IIRuhr-University of BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations