David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:135 - 142 (1988)
If a computational account of visual perception were correct, then perception would involve at least two sorts of rule-guided inference processes: inference from primitive input to complex perceptual output (constructional inference) and inference from perceptual content to the organism's environment (representational inference). Psychologist J.J. Gibson argues that such accounts are circular. Fodor and Pylyshyn argue that Gibson's alternative account, though intended to be non-inferential, actually requires the above two sorts of inference. But their arguments for the necessity of inference work only if (1) complex properties cannot be transduced, and (2) we assume a signal transmission model of perception. The force of their arguments is weakened once we see that (1) their criterion for non-transducibility is itself problematic, and (2) an interactive model of visual perception does not require signal transmission.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stephen P. Stich (1982). Beyond Inference in Perception. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:553 - 560.
Dhanraj Vishwanath (2005). The Epistemological Status of Vision and its Implications for Design. Axiomathes 15 (3):399-486.
Philip A. Glotzbach (1992). Determining the Primary Problem of Visual Perception: A Gibsonian Response to the Correlation' Objection. Philosophical Psychology 5 (1):69-94.
Jerry A. Fodor (1984). Observation Reconsidered. Philosophy of Science 51 (March):23-43.
Jim Davies, Nancy J. Nersessian & Ashok K. Goel (2005). Visual Models in Analogical Problem Solving. Foundations of Science 10 (1):133-152.
Manish Singh & Donald D. Hoffman (1999). Perception, Inference, and the Veridicality of Natural Constraints. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):395-396.
Karl J. Friston (2005). Hallucinations and Perceptual Inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):764-766.
Jeff Coulter (1990). The Praxiology of Perception: Visual Orientations and Practical Action. Inquiry 251 (September):251-272.
Richard Montgomery (1990). Visual Perception and the Wages of Indeterminacy. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:365 - 378.
Lorenzo Magnani (2012). L. Albertazzi, G. J. Van Tonder, and D. Vishwanath (Eds): Perception Beyond Inference: The Information Content of Visual Processes. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 22 (1):53-55.
Rainer Mausfeld (2010). The Perception of Material Qualities and the Internal Semantics of the Perceptual System. In Albertazzi Liliana, Tonder Gert & Vishwanath Dhanraj (eds.), Perception beyond Inference. The Information Content of Visual Processes. MIT Press.
Steven Rappaport (1996). Inference to the Best Explanation: Is It Really Different From Mill's Methods? Philosophy of Science 63 (1):65-80.
Daniel Collerton, Elaine Perry & Ian McKeith (2005). Why People See Things That Are Not There: A Novel Perception and Attention Deficit Model for Recurrent Complex Visual Hallucinations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):737-757.
Cameron Shelley (1996). Visual Abductive Reasoning in Archaeology. Philosophy of Science 63 (2):278-301.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads1 ( #306,128 of 1,088,388 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,388 )
How can I increase my downloads?