David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):977-978 (2002)
O'Regan and Noe declare that the qualitative character of experience is constituted by the nature of the sensorimotor contingencies at play when we perceive. Sensorimotor contingencies are a highly restricted set of input-output relations. The restriction excludes contingencies that don’t essentially involve perceptual systems. Of course if the ‘sensory’ in ‘sensorimotor’ were to be understood mentalistically, the thesis would not be of much interest, so I assume that these contingencies are to be understood non-mentalistically. Contrary to their view, experience is a matter of what mediates between input and output, not input-output relations all by themselves. However, instead of mounting a head-on collision with their view, I think it will be more useful to consider a consequence of their view that admits of obvious counterexamples. The consequence consists of two claims: (1) any two systems that share that highly restricted set of input-output relations are therefor experientially the same and (2) conversely, any two systems that share experience must share these sensorimotor contingencies. Once stated, the view is so clearly wrong that my ascription of it to them might be challenged. At least it is a consequence of a major strand in their view. Perhaps this will be an opportunity for them to disassociate themselves from it. I will limit myself to (1)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Tom Roberts (2010). Understanding 'Sensorimotor Understanding'. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):101-111.
Gwendolyn E. Roberson, Mark T. Wallace & James A. Schirillo (2001). The Sensorimotor Contingency of Multisensory Localization Correlates with the Conscious Percept of Spatial Unity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):1001-1002.
Norman Y. Foo & Pavlos Peppas (2001). Realization for Causal Nondeterministic Input-Output Systems. Studia Logica 67 (3):419-437.
Donald Laming (2001). On the Distinction Between “Sensorimotor” and “Motorsensory” Contingencies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):992-992.
Ernst Niebur (2001). Sensorimotor Contingencies Do Not Replace Internal Representations, and Mastery is Not Necessary for Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):994-995.
Alessandra Tanesini & Richard Gray (2010). Perception and Action: The Taste Test. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (241):718-734.
Julian Hochberg (2001). In the Mind's Eye: Perceptual Coupling and Sensorimotor Contingencies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):986-986.
Howard C. Nusbaum, Jeremy I. Skipper & Steven L. Small (2001). A Sensory-Attentional Account of Speech Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):995-996.
Andy Clark & Josefa Toribio, Sensorimotor Chauvinism?” Commentary on O'Reagan, J. Kevin and Noë, Alva, “A Sensorimotor Account of Vision and Visual Consciousness”.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads64 ( #24,741 of 1,099,564 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #12,117 of 1,099,564 )
How can I increase my downloads?