David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Issues 20 (1):96-124 (2010)
Students of perception have long puzzled over a range of cases in which perception seems to tell us distinct, and in some sense conflicting, things about the world. In the cases at issue, the perceptual system is capable of responding to a single stimulus — say, as manifested in the ways in which subjects sort that stimulus — in different ways. This paper is about these puzzling cases, and about how they should be characterized and accounted for within a general theory of perception. After rehearsing the sort of case at issue (§1), I’ll examine critically some of the strategies by which philosophers and perceptual psychologists have attempted to account for them (§2). Finally, I’ll present an alternative computational account of the puzzle cases, argue that this view is superior to its competitors, and examine some of its implications (§3).
|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
James J. Gibson (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Alva Noë (2005). Action in Perception. The MIT Press.
Wilfrid Sellars (1963). Science, Perception, and Reality. New York, Humanities Press.
Irvin Rock (1983). The Logic Of Perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Assaf Weksler (2016). Retinal Images and Object Files: Towards Empirically Evaluating Philosophical Accounts of Visual Perspective. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7 (1):91-103.
Damon Crockett (2014). Surface Colour is Not a Perceptual Content. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (2):303-318.
Similar books and articles
Nir Fresco (2010). Explaining Computation Without Semantics: Keeping It Simple. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (2):165-181.
Selmer Bringsjord (1998). Cognition is Not Computation: The Argument From Irreversibility. Synthese 113 (2):285-320.
John Haugeland (2002). Authentic Intentionality. In Matthias Scheutz (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions. MIT Press
Gualtiero Piccinini & Sonya Bahar (2013). Neural Computation and the Computational Theory of Cognition. Cognitive Science 37 (3):453-488.
B. Maclennan (2003). Transcending Turing Computability. Minds and Machines 13 (1):3-22.
Paolo Cotogno (2003). Hypercomputation and the Physical Church-Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):181-223.
Ronald L. Chrisley (1998). What Might Dynamical Intentionality Be, If Not Computation? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):634-635.
David J. Chalmers (1994). On Implementing a Computation. Minds and Machines 4 (4):391-402.
Selmer Bringsjord (2001). In Computation, Parallel is Nothing, Physical Everything. Minds and Machines 11 (1):95-99.
Gary Hatfield (1989). Computation, Representation and Content in Noncognitive Theories of Perception. In Stuart Silvers (ed.), ReRepresentation. Kluwer
Selmer Bringsjord (1994). Computation, Among Other Things, is Beneath Us. Minds and Machines 4 (4):469-88.
Rahul Sarpeshkar (1998). Analog Versus Digital: Extrapolating From Electronics to Neurobiology. Neural Computation 10 (7):1601--1638.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1995). Computationalism. Synthese 105 (3):303-17.
Steven Davis (ed.) (2000). Color Perception: Philosophical, Psychological, Artistic, and Computational Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
L. Jonathan Cohen (1977). The Causal Theory of Perception. Aristotelian Society 127:127-141.
Added to index2010-11-30
Total downloads69 ( #58,723 of 1,790,383 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #75,986 of 1,790,383 )
How can I increase my downloads?