David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 134 (2):211 - 234 (2007)
In this paper, I argue that those who accept the conceptualist view in the philosophy of perception should reject the traditional view that colour indiscriminability is non-transitive. I start by outlining the general strategy that conceptualists have adopted in response to the familiar ‘fineness of grain’ objection, and I show why a commitment to what I call the indiscriminability claim seems to form a natural part of this strategy. I then show how together, the indiscriminability claim and the non-transitivity claim –the claim that colour indiscriminability is non-transitive –entail a further, suspicious-looking claim that I call the problematic claim. My argument then splits into two parts. In the first part, I show why the conceptualist does indeed need to reject the problematic claim. Given that this claim is jointly entailed by the indiscriminability claim and the non-transitivity claim, the conceptualist is then left with a straight choice: reject the indiscriminability claim, or reject the non-transitivity claim. In the second part, I then explain why the conceptualist should choose the latter option
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Mind Epistemology Logic Philosophy|
|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
John McDowell (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
J. Campbell (2002). Reference and Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Gareth Evans (1982). Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press.
Bill Brewer (1999/2002). Perception and Reason. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Diana Raffman (2012). Indiscriminability and Phenomenal Continua. Philosophical Perspectives 26 (1):309-322.
Similar books and articles
Diana Raffman (2000). Is Perceptual Indiscriminability Nontransitive? Philosophical Topics 28 (1):153-75.
Benj Hellie (2005). Noise and Perceptual Indiscriminability. Mind 114 (455):481-508.
Delia Graff Fara (2001). Phenomenal Continua and the Sorites. Mind 110 (440):905-935.
Dalia Drai (2007). The Phenomenal Sorites and Response Dependence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):619 – 631.
Philippe Chuard (2010). Non-Transitive Looks & Fallibilism. Philosophical Studies 149 (2):161 - 200.
Michael Caie (2012). Vagueness and Semantic Indiscriminability. Philosophical Studies 160 (3):365-377.
Katalin Farkas (2006). Indiscriminability and the Sameness of Appearance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2):39-59.
Charlie Pelling (2007). Conceptualism and the Problem of Illusory Experience. Acta Analytica 22 (3):169-182.
John Post & Derek Turner (2000). Sic Transitivity. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:67-82.
Charles Pelling (2008). Exactness, Inexactness, and the Non-Transitivity of Perceptual Indiscriminability. Synthese 164 (2):289 - 312.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads68 ( #53,478 of 1,781,346 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #108,202 of 1,781,346 )
How can I increase my downloads?