Advertisement

Cognitive Penetrability and the Epistemic Role of Perception

  • Athanassios RaftopoulosEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Palgrave Innovations in Philosophy book series (PIIP)

Abstract

In this chapter, I examine the problems that cognitively penetrated (CP) raises for the epistemic role of perception in justifying empirical beliefs. I assess both internalistic and externalistic accounts of perceptual justification and argue that only the latter, especially when they involve a reference to the sensitivity of perception to the environmental input and the way this sensitivity is influenced by CP, offer a promising start to understanding the effects of CP on the epistemic role of perception. This discussion will serve as the basis on which I will base my revisiting the problem of CP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Audi, R. (2003). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (1987). Thought and Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Block, N. (2007). Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between Psychology and Neuroscience. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 481–548.Google Scholar
  5. Brogaard, B. (2013). Phenomenal seemings and sensible dogmatism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and Justification (pp. 270–289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. (2017). The real epistemic significance of perceptual learning. Inquiry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1368172.
  7. Burge, T. (1977). Belief de re. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 338–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burge, T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(3), 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnston, D. (2017). Cognitive penetration and the cognition-perception interface. Synthese, 194, 3645–3668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, A. (2014). Perception and evidence. Philosophical Studies, 170, 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavanagh, P. (2011). Visual cognition. Vision Research, 51, 1538–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchland, P. M. (1988). Perceptual plasticity and theoretical neutrality: A reply to Jerry Fodor. Philosophy of Science, 55, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson, D. (1986). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In E. LePore (Ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feyerabend, P. (1981). Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000965.
  20. Ghijsen, H. (2016). The real epistemic problem of cognitive penetration. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1457–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hatfield, G. (2002). Perception as unconscious inference. In D. Heyer & R. Mausfeld (Eds.), Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Heck, R. G., Jr. (2000). Nonconceptual content and the ‘space of reasons’. Philosophical Review, 109, 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heck, R. G., Jr. (2007). Are there different kinds of content? In J. Cohen & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Helmholtz, von H. (1878[1925]). Treatise on Psychological Optics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  26. Huemer, M. (2007). Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huemer, M. (2013). Epistemological asymmetries between belief and experience. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackendoff, R. (1989). Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kitcher, P. (2001). Real realism: The Galilean strategy. Philosophical Review, 110(2), 151–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kvaning, J. (2003). Propositionalism and the perspectival aspect of justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  33. Lamme, V. A. F. (2005). Independent neural definitions of visual awareness and attention. In A. Raftopoulos (Ed.), The Cognitive Penetrability of Perception: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Hauppauge, NJ: NovaScience Books.Google Scholar
  34. Long, R. (2017). How wishful thinking is not like wishful thinking. Philosophical Studies. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0917-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyons, J. (2005). Perceptual beliefs and nonexperiential looks. In J. Hawthorne (Ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 19: Epistemology. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Lyons, J. (2009). Perception and Basic Beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons, J. (2011). Circularity, reliability, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Issues, 21, The Epistemology of Perception, 289–311.Google Scholar
  38. Lyons, J. C. (2015). Inferentialism and cognitive penetrability of perception. Episteme, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyons, J. C. (2016). Experiential evidence. Philosophical Studies, 73, 1053–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Macpherson, F. (2012). Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(1), 24–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markie, P. J. (2005). The mystery of direct perceptual justification. Philosophical Studies, 126, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markie, P. J. (2006). Epistemically appropriate perceptual belief. Nous, 40, 118–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markie, P. J. (2013). Searching for true dogmatism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and Justification (pp. 248–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McAllister, B. (2018). Seemings as sui generis. Synthese, 195, 3079–3096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. McDowell, J. (2011). Reception as a Capacity for Knowledge. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  47. McGrath, M. (2013a). Siegel and the impact for epistemological internalism. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 723–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGrath, M. (2013b). Phenomenal conservatism and cognitive penetration. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and Justification (pp. 225–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. McGrath, M. (2016). Schellenberg on the epistemic force of experience. Philosophical Studies, 173, 897–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McGrath, M., & Fantl, J. (2002). Evidence, pragmatics, and justification. The Philosophical Review, 111, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Millar, A. (2011). How visual perception yields reasons for belief. Philosophical Issues, 21, The Epistemology of Perception, 332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peacocke, C. (2004). The Realm of Reason. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Perry, J. (2001). Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pryor, J. (2000). The sceptic and the dogmatist. Nous, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pryor, J. (2005). There is immediate justification. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 181–201). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 341–365.Google Scholar
  58. Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and Visualizing: It’s Not What You Think. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pylyshyn, Z. (2007). Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raftopoulos, A. (2001a). Is perception informationally encapsulated? The issue of the theory-ladenness of perception. Cognitive Science, 25, 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raftopoulos, A. (2001b). Reentrant pathways and the theory-ladenness of observation. Philosophy of Science, 68, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raftopoulos, A. (2009). Cognition and Perception: How Do Psychology and Neural Science Inform Philosophy?. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raftopoulos, A. (2011, November 30). Late vision: Its processes and epistemic status. Front Psychol, 2: 382.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00382.
  64. Raftopoulos, A. (2014). The cognitive impenetrability of the content of early vision is a necessary and sufficient condition for purely nonconceptual content. Philosophical Psychology, 27(5), 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Raftopoulos, A. (2015a). The cognitive impenetrability of perception and theory-ladenness. Journal of General Philosophy of Science, 46(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raftopoulos, A. (2015b). Cognitive penetrability and consciousness. In J. S. Zeimbekis & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), Cognitive Effects on Perception: New Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 268–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raftopoulos, A., & Muller, V. (2006). Nonconceptual demonstrative reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(2), 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Recanati, F. (1997). Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Rock, I. (1983). The Logic of Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Schellenberg, S. (2011). Perceptual content defended. Nous, 45, 714–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schellenberg, S. (2013). Experience and evidence. Mind, 122(487), 699–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schellenberg, S. (2014). The epistemic force of perceptual experience. Philosophical Studies, 170, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schellenberg, S. (2016a). Phenomenal evidence and factive evidence. Philosophical Studies, 173, 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schellenberg, S. (2016b). Phenomenal evidence and factive evidence defended: Replies to MacGrath, Pautz, and Neta. Philosophical Studies, 173, 929–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. I, pp. 253–329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  76. Siegel, S. (2011). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Nous, 46, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siegel, S. (2012). The Contents of Visual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Siegel, S. (2013a). The epistemic impact of the etiology of experience. Philosophical Studies, 162, 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Siegel, S. (2013b). Can selection effects influence the rational role of experience? In T. Gelder (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology (Vol. 4, pp. 240–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Siegel, S. (2015). Epistemic charge. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CVX(3), 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegel, S. (2016). How is wishful seeing like wishful thinking? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Siegel, S., & Silins, N. (2014). Consciousness, attention, and justification. In D. Dodds & E. Zardini (Eds.), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification (pp. 149–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Silins, N. (2005). Deception and evidence. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, A. D. (2002). The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Smithies, D. (2014). The phenomenal basis of epistemic justification. In J. Kallestrup & M. Sprevak (Eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Mind. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  86. Smithies, D. (2016). Perception and the external world. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1119–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sosa, D. (2011). Some of the structure of experience and belief. Philosophical Issues 21, The Epistemology of Perception, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Speaks, J. (2005). The Phenomenal and the Representational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Spelke, E. S. (1988). Object perception. In A. I. Goldman (Ed.), Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science (pp. 447–461). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Steup, M. (2018). Destructive defeat an justificational force: The diallectic of dogmatism, conservatism, and metaevidentialism. Synthese, 195, 2907–2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tucker, C. (2010). Why open-minded people should endorse dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, Epistemology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tucker, C. (2014). If dogmatists have a problem with cognitive penetration, you do too. Dialectica, 68(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tye, M. (1995). Ten Problems of Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tye, M. (2002). Visual qualia and visual content revisited. In D. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of Mind (pp. 447–457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tye, M. (2006). Nonconceptual content, richness and fineness of grain. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual Experience (pp. 504–530). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tye, M. (2009). Consciousness Revisited: Materialism Without Phenomenal Concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Vahid, H. (2014). Cognitive penetration, the downgrade principle, and extended cognition. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options