Ambiguous figures and the spatial contents of perceptual experience: a defense of representationalism [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (3):325-346 (2011)
Representationalists hold that the phenomenal character of a perceptual experience is identical with, or supervenes on, an aspect of its representational content. As such, representationalism could be disproved by a counter-example consisting of two experiences that have the same representational content but differ in phenomenal character. In this paper, I discuss two recently proposed counter-examples to representationalism that involve ambiguous or reversible figures. I pursue two goals. My first, and most important, goal is to show that the representationalist can offer plausible responses to both counter-examples. My second goal is to show the implications of these responses for the nature of the spatial representational contents of perceptual experiences
|Keywords||Perceptual experience Representationalism Spatial representational content Mach figure|
|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
J. Campbell (1994). Past, Space, and Self. MIT Press.
J. Campbell (2002). Reference and Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
David J. Chalmers (2006). Perception and the Fall From Eden. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press. 49--125.
David J. Chalmers (2004). The Representational Character of Experience. In Brian Leiter (ed.), The Future for Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 153--181.
Gareth Evans (1982). Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Bence Nanay (2011). Ambiguous Figures, Attention, and Perceptual Content: Reply to Jagnow. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (4):557-561.
Similar books and articles
Fiona Macpherson (2006). Ambiguous Figures and the Content of Experience. Noûs 40 (1):82-117.
Athanasios Raftopoulos (2011). Ambiguous Figures and Representationalism. Synthese 181 (3):489-514.
Nicoletta Orlandi (2011). Ambiguous Figures and Representationalism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (3):307-323.
Fiona Macpherson (2000). Representational Theories of Phenomenal Character. Dissertation, University of Stirling
Uriah Kriegel (2004). Perceptual Experience, Conscious Content, and Nonconceptual Content. Essays in Philosophy 5 (1):1-14.
René Jagnow (2012). Representationalism and the Perspectival Character of Perceptual Experience. Philosophical Studies 157 (2):227-249.
John O'Dea (2006). Representationalism, Supervenience, and the Cross-Modal Problem. Philosophical Studies 130 (2):285-95.
Athanasios Raftopoulos (2008). Ambiguous Figures and Nonconceptual Content. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 42:179-187.
Jeff Speaks (2010). Attention and Intentionalism. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):325-342.
Paul Coates (2009). The Multiple Contents of Experience. Philosophical Topics 37 (1):25-47.
René Jagnow (2009). How Representationalism Can Account for the Phenomenal Significance of Illumination. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8 (4):551-572.
Michael Tye (2002). Representationalism and the Transparency of Experience. Noûs 36 (1):137-51.
Susanna Schellenberg (2010). The Particularity and Phenomenology of Perceptual Experience. Philosophical Studies 149 (1):19 - 48.
Added to index2011-04-24
Total downloads73 ( #19,485 of 1,102,835 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #20,958 of 1,102,835 )
How can I increase my downloads?