David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 117 (468):1003-1033 (2008)
Reflection on the fine-grained information required for visual guidance of action has suggested that visual content is non-conceptual. I argue that in a common type of visually guided action, namely the use of manipulable artefacts, vision has conceptual content. Specifically, I show that these actions require visual attention and that concepts are involved in directing attention. In acting with artefacts, there is a way of doing it right as determined by the artefact’s conventional use. Attention must reflect our understanding of the function and appropriate ways to use these artefacts, understanding that requires possession of the relevant concept. As a result, we attend to the artefact’s relevant functional properties. In these cases, attention is structured by concepts. This discussion has a bearing on the dual visual stream hypothesis. While it is often held that the two visual streams are functionally independent, the argument of this essay is that the constraints on attention suggest a functional interaction between them.
|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
Wayne Wu (2015). Experts and Deviants: The Story of Agentive Control. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):n/a-n/a.
Indrek Reiland (2015). Experience, Seemings, and Evidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (4):510-534.
Wayne Wu (2013). Visual Spatial Constancy and Modularity: Does Intention Penetrate Vision? Philosophical Studies 165 (2):647-669.
Joshua Shepherd (2016). Conscious Action/Zombie Action. Noûs 50 (2):419-444.
Ariel S. Cecchi (2014). Cognitive Penetration, Perceptual Learning and Neural Plasticity. Dialectica 68 (1):63-95.
Similar books and articles
Luiz Pessoa (2005). To What Extent Are Emotional Visual Stimuli Processed Without Attention and Awareness? Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15 (2):188-196.
Rolf Verleger & Piotr Jaskowski (2006). Effects of Masked Stimuli on Attention and Response Tendencies as Revealed by Event-Related EEG Potentials: Possible Application to Understanding Neglect. In Haluk Ögmen & Bruno G. Breitmeyer (eds.), The First Half Second: The Microgenesis and Temporal Dynamics of Unconscious and Conscious Visual Processes. MIT Press 225-241.
Victor A. F. Lamme (2003). Why Visual Attention and Awareness Are Different. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (1):12-18.
Naomi M. Eilan (2006). On the Role of Perceptual Consciousness in Explaining the Goals and Mechanisms of Vision: A Convergence on Attention? Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1):67-88.
James Stazicker (2011). Attention, Visual Consciousness and Indeterminacy. Mind and Language 26 (2):156-184.
Mika Koivisto & Antti Revonsuo (2007). Electrophysiological Correlates of Visual Consciousness and Selective Attention. Neuroreport 18 (8):753-756.
Victor A. F. Lamme (2005). Independent Neural Definitions of Visual Awareness and Attention. In Athanassios Raftopoulos (ed.), Cognitive Penetrability of Perception: Attention, Action, Strategies, and Bottom-Up Constraints. Nova Science Publishers 171-191.
Wayne Wright (2006). Visual Stuff and Active Vision. Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):129-149.
Todd Ganson & Ben Bronner (2013). Visual Prominence and Representationalism. Philosophical Studies 164 (2):405-418.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads143 ( #26,183 of 1,906,981 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #60,219 of 1,906,981 )
How can I increase my downloads?