Various illusions of meaning appear to be insensitive to counter-evidence. That is, in a similar fashion to the well-known Müller-Lyer illusion in vision, certain illusions of meaning seem not to fade away even after one endorses beliefs that rebut the illusion one is having. Such apparently evidence-insensitive illusions have been employed to support the view that we can perceive meanings because evidence-insensitivity is typically taken to be a perceptual trait. In this paper, I offer a comprehensive examination of allegedly evidence-insensitive (...) illusions of meaning and argue that none is, in fact, evidence insensitive in a way that might support the view that we can perceive meanings. (shrink)

According to high-levelism, one can perceptually be aware of high-level properties such as natural kind properties. Against high-levelism, the Gestalt proposal suggests that instead of high-level properties, one can have a perceptual experience as of Gestalt properties, i.e., determinables of determinate low-level properties. When one looks at a bird, the high-levelist argues that one can perceive the property of being a bird, and the proponent of the Gestalt proposal argues that one first perceives the property of having the bird Gestalt (...) (shared by all and only birds) and only post-perceptually recognizes that it is a bird. In the present study, to resolve the dispute between high-levelism and the Gestalt proposal, I aim to test their abilities to explain the attribution of multiple perceptible properties to the same object by making use of various empirical studies on high-level aftereffects. I conclude that the Gestalt proposal fails the test and hence shall not be a viable alternative to high-levelism. (shrink)

To salvage traditional logic and traditional square of opposition from the problem of existential import, logicians have been offering solutions for centuries. In this paper, firstly it will be argued that as far as we know, the historically first solution proposed by Abelard in 11th century and by Seuren in 2002 is actually a version of the O-Corner Interpretation of traditional logic, which is generally attributed to the 14th century logician Ockham. Secondly, it will be advocated that two systems of (...) Abelard and of Ockham have the same logical power. Lastly, the main claim will be that Abelard’s and Seuren’s system shall be favored over Ockham’s system. (shrink)

To salvage traditional logic and traditional square of opposition from the problem of existential import, logicians have been offering solutions for centuries. In this paper, firstly it will be argued that as far as we know, the historically first solution proposed by Abelard in 11th century and by Seuren in 2002 is actually a version of the O-Corner Interpretation of traditional logic, which is generally attributed to the 14th-century logician Ockham. Secondly, it will be advocated that two systems of Abelard (...) and of Ockham have the same logical power. Lastly, the main claim will be that Abelard’s and Seuren’s system shall be favored over Ockham’s system. (shrink)