Advertisement

The Argument from Contradictory Contents

  • Eva Schmidt
Chapter
  • 384 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 8)

Abstract

The argument from contradictory contents presented here is based directly on observations about the content of experience. It claims that experience content, if conceptual, allows for contradictions within one and the same content. There are at least two examples of this, the waterfall illusion and the visual experiences of some grapheme-color synesthetes. However, due to a Fregean principle of content individuation, no conceptual contents are contradictory. So experience content is nonconceptual. I motivate a particular version of the argument and defend it against two central objections: First, the objection that there is more than one content involved in apparently self-contradictory experiences and second, the claim that conceptual contents are sometimes contradictory, as is true of some desires. In reaction to the second objection, I argue that we need an explanation of why subjects are not irrational if they do not revise their self-contradictory perceptual experiences, and that the conceptualist has no good account of this. For on his view, just as in thought, conceptual abilities are involved in experience and we are dealing with the same Fregean propositional contents. By contrast, nonconceptualism provides such an explanation, for no conceptual abilities are involved in experience itself, and scenario content is not the kind of content that can be revised under rational pressure.

Keywords

Perceptual Experience Visual Experience Phenomenal Character Conceptual Content Perceptual Content 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Crane, T. (1988). The waterfall illusion. Analysis, 48, 142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crane, T. (1992b). The nonconceptual content of experience. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience: essays on perception (pp. 136–157). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (1980). Mental events. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events (pp. 207–225). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dixon, M., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2004). Not all synaesthetes are created equal: projector versus associator synaesthetes. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 335–343.Google Scholar
  5. Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of perception: a contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gennaro, R. (2012). The consciousness paradox: consciousness, concepts, and higher-order thoughts. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Gunther, Y. (2001). Content, illusion, partition. Philosophical Studies, 102, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heck, R. (2000). Nonconceptual content and the ‘space of reasons’. Philosophical Review, 109, 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDowell, J. (1994a). Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McDowell, J. (2009a). Avoiding the myth of the given. In J. McDowell (Ed.), Having the world in view: essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars (pp. 256–272). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McDowell, J. (2009d). The logical form of an intuition. In Having the world in view: essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars (pp. 23–43). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mellor, D. (1988). Crane’s waterfall illusion. Analysis, 48, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Müller-Lyer, F. C. (1889). Optische urteilstäuschungen. Archiv für Physiologie Suppl.,, 263–270.Google Scholar
  14. Neave, P. (n.d.). http://www.neave.com/strobe/. Accessed 20 May 2007.
  15. Necker, L. A. (1832). Observations on some remarkable optical phaenomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phaenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1, 329–337.Google Scholar
  16. Robertson, L., & Sagiv, N. (2005). Synesthesia and the binding problem. In L. Robertson & N. Sagiv (Eds.), Synesthesia: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 90–107). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Speaks, J. (2005). Is there a problem about nonconceptual content?. Philosophical Review, 114, 359–398. http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/philo/speaks/papers/nonconceptual-penultimate.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations