Keywords
philosophy of perception, realism, nonconceptual content, conceptual content
Abstract
In this paper the connections between the nonconceptual content of perceptual states and realism are considered. In particular, I investigate the argument for realism that uses the notion of nonconceptual content, specifically the version proposed by Raftopoulos in Cognition and Perception. To evaluate the argument two forms of realism are identified: (1) correlation realism (CR), according to which distinctions in perceptual content correlate with distinctions in the environment, and (2) ontological realism (OR), according to which perceptual content and perceived reality are both organized according to the same set of ontological categories. First, it is argued that the distinction between nonconceptual and conceptual content is irrelevant for the justification of CR. In particular, the notion of nonconceptual content is neither sufficient nor is it necessary for such justification. Second, it is stated that the version of the causal theory of perception that is used in the argument considered already assumes ontological realism. What is more, the weaker version of the causal theory, that does not presuppose OR, is too weak to justify ontological realism in combination with assumptions about nonconceptual content and the successfulness of perception.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Skrzypulec, Błażej
(2014)
"Nonconceptual Content, Causal Theory, and Realism,"
Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication:
Vol. 9.
https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1090
References
Campbell, J. 1997. “Sense, reference and selective attention”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 71: 55–74.
Clark, A. 2004. “Feature-placing and proto-objects”, Philosophical Psychology 17: 443–69.
Crane, T. 1988. “The waterfall illusion”, Analysis 48: 142–7.
Husserl E. 2001. Logical investigations. Trans. J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge.
Hutto D. D. 2006. “Unprincipled engagements: Emotional experience, expression and response”, [in:] Radical Enactivism. Ed. Menary, R., John Benjamin Publishing: Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 13–38.
van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs B. J., 1992. “The reviewing of object files: object specific integration of information”, Cognitive Psychology 24: 175–219.
Kellman, P. J. & Shipley, T. F. 1991. “A theory of visual interpolation in objects perception”, Cognitive Psychology 23: 141–221.
Lamme, V. A. F. 2003. “Why visual attention and awareness are different”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 12–8.
Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
O’Regan, J. K. 2011. Why Red Doesn’t Sound like a Bell: Understanding the Feel of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, S. E. & Rock, I. 1994. “Rethinking Perceptual organization: the role of uniform connectedness”, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1: 29–55.
Peacocke, P. 2001. “Does perception have a nonconceptual content?”, Journal of Philosophy 98: 239–64.
Putnam, H. 1975. Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. 1999. “Is vision continuous with cognition?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 341–65.
¾¾¾2001. “Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision”, Cognition 80: 127–58.
¾¾¾2007. Things and Places: How the Minds Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Raftopoulos, A. 2006. “Defending realism on the proper ground”, Philosophical Psychology 19: 1–31.
¾¾¾2008. “Perceptual systems and realism”, Synthese 164: 61–91.
¾¾¾2009. Cognition and Perception. How Do Neural Science and Cognitive Psychology Inform Philosophy?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Russell, B. 1956. An Inquiry Into Meaning and Truth. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Smith B. 1998. “The basic tools of formal ontology”, [In:] Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Ed. Guarino, N., Washington, DC: IOS Press: 19–28.
Treisman, A. 1999. “Solutions to the Binding Problem: Progress through Controversy and Convergence”, Neuron 24: 105-10.
Tye, M. 1995. Ten Problems of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Unger, P. 1979. “There are no Ordinary Things”, Synthese 41: 117–54.
Vecera, P. 2000. “Toward a biased competition account of object-based segmentation and attention”, Brain and Mind 1: 353–84.
