SIEGEL'S CONTENTS !e principal interest of Susanna Siegel's book, !e Contents of Visual Experience, for its intended audience will be, I expect, its case for the Rich Content View, according to which the contents of visual experience are richly complex, so are not limited to color, shape, and other properties standardly taken to be represented by visual experience. (7) For example (she suggests) someone's visual experience might represent it as so (to him) that John Malkovich is walking by holding a small dog. To her credit, though, Siegel is among the few who actually bother to argue that perceptual experience does have representational content-in this case, that it is truth-evaluable-liable to be true or false. Before you can defend the rich content view, she recognises, you need to defend the 'content überhaupt view'. More o"en, for reasons which escape me, that view is merely taken to be obvious. And, I think, as opposed to some others, by 'perceptual experience' she really does mean perceptual experience, notably, an experience of perceiving (e.g., seeing) such-and-such, and not just some internal (presumably neural) state. If I had to take sides in this dispute, I might well feel a pull towards Siegel's view-if such distant counterfactuals are evaluable at all. But I debark from this boat a few ports sooner. !ese early legs of the journey will concern me here. 1. Perception's Objects: In introducing the Rich Content View Siegel puts things in what I think is a very revealing way: Is it already part of your visual experience that John Malkovich is walking by, carrying a dog? Or do you just visually experience an array of colored shapes bouncing slightly at regular intervals, and subsequently judge that it is John Malkovich carrying a dog? More generally, we can ask: do you just visually experience arrays of colored shapes, variously illuminated, and sometimes moving? Or does visual experience involve more complex features, such as personal identity, causation, and kinds such as bicycle, keys, and cars? (p. 3) Just this choice is o#ered repeatedly. (E.g., p. 78.) Already there are two telltale signs. One is the intrusion of 'that' into her $rst try at her preferred alternative: 'that John Malkovich is walking by'. Back to that in a moment. !e other is the alternative she o#ers. Either perceptual experience has representational content, and moreover rich content in her sense; or what we experience is merely shapes, colours, movements (etc.). Whether perceptual experience has representational content or not, and if so, whether rich or not, is, from the start, a matter of what its objects are-whether, e.g., John Malkovich or not. Or thus acccording to Siegel. !ere is no room from her perspective for a view on which what one sees if John Malkovich walks by holding a dog is: John Malkovich walking by holding a dog (unless one's attention was diverted at the crucial moment, or all went blurry, or there was excess of glare, or etc.); but representational content belongs only to the attitudes one forms in response to this. So, at least, for seeing (hallucinations being a di#erent story). What I want to consider in this section is what might be wrong with a perspective that does not allow such things-one on which, inter alia, if Rich Content were wrong, then what one saw would so-wie-so be di#erent than what we all know it to be. !at tell-tale 'that' makes a good beginning. It is a 'that' on which Frege commented at least twice. I cite: But then do I not see that this %ower has $ve petals? One can say that, but then does not use the word 'see' in the sense of mere lightperception, but means by this a thought or judgement connected with it. (1897: 149) But do we not see that the sun has set? And do we not also see thereby that this is true? !at the sun has set is no visible thing like the sun itself. !at the sun has set is recognised as true on the basis of sense impressions. (1918: 61) If 'see' starts life as a verb of perception, like related words it, seemingly ineluctably, acquires uses in recording thought, as in 'I see your point.' One sees (where this is something visual) what is apt for forming images, what is historical-datable, spatially locatable; for example, John before one, John walking, John's walking. !e sun set over the Douro's foz. !at it set is neither there nor on the sandbar separating sea from river (nor under the table on which I write this). It is not the sort of thing to form images. If Pia saw that John was walking, 'see' no longer speaks of the visual. It is what Pia might also have done in John's absence, noting the mud he tracked on her white rug. To deny that that John was walking is a visual phenomenon is thus not to deny that what Pia saw was John, walking (and thus, of course, his walking). It is not as though once we subtract that John was walking from the objects of perception proper, what is le" is just some congeries of colours and shapes. What one sees is what was there: John, walking (etc.). !is comes out also in the fact that what Pia saw may be John walking whether she realises this or not. All could have been a %eeting blur to her. Unknowingly seeing John walking, she may fail to see that John was walking. (Or again, failed to appreciate it as walking: 'You call that walking?') So at the very least denying perceptual experience representational content is not endorsing that all we see are congeries of shapes and colours, or that what we see is anything other than what is there-such things as John and his walking. Siegel presents us with a false choice. In the fourth of his 17 Kernsätze zur Logik Frege suggests the framework into which to $t this point: A thought always contains something which reaches beyond the particular case, by means of which it presents this to consciousness as falling under some given generality. ((unknown): Kernsatz 4) Two pieces are in play here: a thought; and a particular case. A thought represents the particular case as bearing a certain relation to a certain generality. If it represents correctly, the particular case does bear that relation to that generality. !e idea of a thought (in Frege's sense) can be parsed as follows: the thought is of some particular way for things to be, which it presents as being a way things are. It is of, e.g., things being such that John is walking, and presents this as one way things are. !at generality intrinsic to all thoughts, its 'reaching beyond the particular case', is found in this way for things to be, and its way of reaching beyond the particular case. In brief, if things are such that John is walking, they could have been that way had Pia been in Cleveland at the time instead of Boston, or if John had been wearing %ip-%ops instead of brogans-and so on ad inf. For the way for things in question to be the one it is is for it to reach as it thus does. Something about it thus determines when a particular case would fall under its generality-would bear that indicated relation to it. What is the the particular case? What is things being such that John is walking? !e simplest answer, and that which I will adopt here, is: it is things being as they are. !ings being as they are is things being such that John is walking. It achieves this in one of the inde$nitely many ways such might be achieved. (Cf. %ip-%ops.) I will say that it instances this way for things to be-my name for that relation of which I $rst spoke. What stands on one side of it-what has that generality intrinsic to any thought, what gets instanced-I will call '(the) conceptual'. What stands on the other side-what does the instancing-I will call '(the) nonconceptual'. Frege's point now becomes: the objects of perception belong to the nonconceptual. One sees, e.g., John's being as he is. Seeing-that, on the other hand, is a relation to some bit of the conceptual. One bears it in recognising that bit as instanced-e.g., the way things are being a case of John walking. Perceptual experience, at least where it is perceiving, is experiencing (witnessing) something nonconceptual (things being as they then are, or as much of that as one has in sight from his current perspective on the world). Why might one want to deny that that has (a) representational content? Consider words. Suppose Pia says, 'John is walking.' She might thus express some thought. For convenience, call it 'the thought that John is walking'. Her act of saying this-an act of speaking some words-thus has a representational content in the meaning of the act. Such sounds could be, might have been, produced in expressing some other thought, or none at all. Something in her way of doing what she did selects this one, as opposed to the others, as the one expressed. For perceptual experience to have no representational content is just for it to lack the means for e#ecting the selecting of this sort that would need doing for it to have one. What matters so far is just that one can perfectly well hold this without commitment to anything about the so-called (perceptual) 'phenomenology' of experience. Such phenomenology lies in what one witnesses, or might, thus in the nonconceptual. If what was witnessed is (instances), say, things being such that John is walking the dog, then one witnesses no less than John walking the dog, which (normally) looks as John walking the dog would look. So it is if John is walking the dog. But suppose one is illuded or hallucinating. Suppose it is for Pia just as though John were walking, though he is not. !en things look to her just as they thus would. (Watch John walk to see how this is.) Insofar as the illusion is visual, things look that way. !ey do not look to be that way. Vision takes no stands on whether that is how things are. Suppose that it is for Pia just as though John were walking, though he nor anyone is there at all. !en, perhaps, its being like this for her is itself no visual phenomenon, but a phenomenon of thought: it may lie in her taking John to be before her, walking, or in her taking just this to be the way things look. Now there is representing with truth-evaluable content. But the representer is her. She so represents things to herself. Still no signs of content of her (e.g., visual) experience. !e point here is grammatical, not phenomenological. !ere is an unbreachable divide between generalities, which are instanced, and history, which does the instancing. If perception lacks representational content, that is because generalities are thought's objects, while perception's are historical. 2. Accuracy: On Siegel's view, a perceptual experience represents things to be so-e.g., that there are peaches on the table. It is correct or incorrect according to whether things are as thus represented. She calls this '!e Content View'. She does not just assume this, but argues it. She o#ers two arguments. !e $rst, the 'argument from accuracy', involves these steps: 1. Perceptual experiences can be more or less accurate. 2. So they have accuracy conditions. 3. !ese attach to them as a truth condition would. 4. So an experience has a condition on truth: that things be thus and so. So it so represents things. Siegel stresses that such representing, if it exists, must be accessible to the perceiver. I agree-if it exists. She does not actually think that this 'argument from accuracy' works. !is leaves its purpose somewhat unclear. Still, it merits some comment. First, 'represent' may stand for many notions. Here two are notable. One is of a twoterm relation, the other of a three-term one. !e two term relation is between historical episodes or circumstances. !ose bags under Pia's eyes represent years of living with Sid's snoring. On this notion a bit of history represents whatever is to blame for it. !at club need be neither exclusive nor $xed univocally. !ose bags may represent the snoring, but also a youthful coup de foudre gone all wrong. Call such a link within the historical 'e#ect (or e-) representing. Generalisations may be licensed. Teetering rocks e-represent wind erosion (as a rule, except, e.g., in theme parks, where they do not). !e three-term relation, representing-as, involves a representer, that which is represented as such-and-such, and what it is represented as being. In familiar cases an author $ts into the $rst place. So might his vehicle-that by which he makes his representing recognisable (some words, say). In general, the second place is occupied by what Frege calls 'the particular case'- things being as they are. It may also be occupied by an object (or sequence of them) whose being as it is is represented as a case of a thing being thus and so. !e problem for representing-as, not arising for e-representing, is selecting an item to occupy this third place. !is is what is $t to be the truth-evaluable content of a representing. So representing-as is what must concern Siegel. While causal relations will do to identify the represented in erepresenting, the sorts of things which $ll the third place here, as Frege notes, do not participate in causal relations at all. !ey are the wrong sort for that. What identi$es the represented in e-representing thus does not so much as begin on that task for representing-as. Siegel's problem is thus to identify some way that perceptual experience may stand towards such things by which it does approach this. Now for Siegel's $rst step. Her aim here is to show that, in general, perceptual experiences are, or are liable to be, more or less accurate. !e next step will be: there are conditions on such accuracy. Preparatory to the step following, these conditions are going to be that what is experienced be thus and so. So, the idea is, these will be conditions on the experience's accuracy of what it is of. So, to continue, if the experience represented what it was of as such-and-such, they could be, and naturally would be, conditions on its accuracy, in such representing, of what it represented (as something). Now the last idea can be: since the experience is anyway held accountable for what it would be if it represented, we can forget the conditional If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ... . So it does represent. !ere are various notions of accuracy. Some are obviously of no use in this sort of case. Others may seem more promising. So it is strange that Siegel approaches her $rst step as she does. Her method is: she gives (roughly) three examples of (pairs of) perceptual experiences, asks us to admit that we have intuitions as to these being more, or less, accurate relative to each other, and then asks us, using our intuitions, to go on in the same way. !us is her notion of accuracy $xed. It is hard to see how such methodology could work. Suppose we do have the intuitions she asks us to have about her examples (as I do not). About what notion of accuracy would they be intuitions? So when we got to a novel case of a perceptual experience (as we do as we start every day), what should we look for to judge its accuracy? Here are three notions of accuracy not to her purpose. First, one historical circumstance (or type) may be a more or less accurate indicator of another. !e millesime of the banker's champagne may be a more or less accurate indicator of how good his day was. !e relative popularity of duvet ratings may be a more or less accurate indicator of energy prices. !e level of popcorn consumption at midweek movies may be a more or less accurate indicator of unemployment rates. Second, one thing or another may give a more or less accurate impression of something. !ose photos Sid shot of the service entrance of the Grand Krasnapolsky may give an inaccurate impression of the hotel. Pia's description of Sid as blonde and tanned may give an inaccurate impression of him if it is only his two remaining hairs that are blond, and his tan covers wrinkles and a paunch. Vic's hemming and hawing may give the (false) impression that there is something he is reluctant to disclose, where, in fact, he is only trying to remember where he is and why. !ird, a lens, or an ampli$er, and so on, may be more or less accurate transmitters or reproducers. Perhaps some of these notions $t some perceptual experiences. But none suit Siegel's purpose. !e accuracy of A as an indicator of B depends on the reliability and $neness of grain of their co-occurrence, or co-variation. !e level of mercury in a tube, for example, may indicate, more or less accurately, that the temperature is 20°, if it means that, and (more or less) exactly that. It can just as well indicate that the temperature is 7° if it means (more or less) exactly that. It might just as well indicate that the average piglet litter in Zafra is 6 if it reliably co-occurs with that. And if this mercury is now at this height in this tube and it is not 20°, then this does not so indicate, though perhaps things of its type as a rule do. What we have here is e#ect-representing, with that question about truth-evaluable representing which it leaves unaddressed: what way is that which is represented represented as being? What is the third term in the relation? As for giving accurate impressions, if what did this-Vic's hemming and hawing, e.g.-determined just what impression it, per se, gave-just how things were according to it-then perhaps we could get started. But the impression Vic gives you all depends on what you know of him, what you have in mind at the moment, and so on. !ere is no de$nite way for things to be-again the third term in that relation-determined by Vic's doings as such. As for lenses and ampli$ers, for them to be accurate in the sense they are is for them not to distort, in some sense of distortion proper to them. If it is the ampli"er which is to be accurate, there is no saying how the world must be for it to be this. Input has a role. And if it fails to reproduce Hendrix accurately-that is, distorts him-it as not as though it presents him as having done other than he did. It is just does not reproduce sound very well. Other notions of accuracy may $t some cases of perceiving. Perspective can make it hard, or impossible, to see-tell-accurately the relative height of tall buildings in a cityscape. In one or another sense of 'look', things may look other than they are. If one building looked taller than another only when it was, that might count as seeing accurately. But does any notion $t which meets Siegel's (or her argument's) needs? Here is a reason to think not. For a perceptual experience to have a truth condition would be for a third term to be provided, for it, for that relation, representing-as, discussed above, to which something-the experience, the 'perceptual system' which generated it, or something else in the experience-may stand as a $rst term. It would be for a generality-some item within the conceptual-to be selected as the one under which that experience presents (or brings) the particular case-the nonconceptual, here what is seen-as falling. But perception's role is o#ering awareness of the nonconceptual-a role it may $ll, or (sometimes) fail at. Perceptual awareness is of (or, where all goes wrong, as though of) just this. It is not awareness of relations between the conceptual and the nonconceptual, so not of instancing. As Frege noted more than once, such awareness is to be sought in another place. So nothing in perceptual experience so much as begins on selecting some item from the conceptual to be the way in it things are represented being. Here, perceptual experience and e-representing stand on equal footing. Which is instanced, for example, in the fact that if, as in one of Siegel's examples, the $sh in the $shbowl looks as though to the right of the castle, while in fact directly over it, there is nothing to decide whether this is to be a case of things being other than as the experience represents them. A"er all, the way things are, in this case, is precisely such as so to look when so viewed. Why is this not a case of things falling under that generality to whose falling under that experience commits? A $nal note on intuition. Of course, neither $shbowls, nor their appearance, represent. Nor does Siegel think so. What is to represent, on her view, is my experience, or experiencing, of them. Not how things look, but how they look to me, is what is meant to matter. Which is a di#erence which is meant to matter. I have just o#ered a reason to think it does not. I will return to this at the end. It is perhaps with such things in mind that Siegel chooses as a substantial portion of her limited collection of examples cases of illusion. For example, Pia hallucinates an airport (or Logan). In one case she does this in the airport, in another at home. We are asked to share the intuition that in the $rst case the hallucination is more accurate than in the last. If intuition is what matters here, this suggestion strikes me as bizarre. Waiting, bored, in the bar for Pia, Sid doodles on cocktail napkins. He draws a picture of a tall man in a top hat, carrying a tomcat under his arm. Amazingly, just then a tall man in a top hat, etc., walks by. He looks exactly like the drawing. !e drawing certainly does not depict that man accurately. It does not depict him at all. Time passes. One mezcal too many, Sid begins to hallucinate: a horned toad jumping onto his knee. By coincidence, a horned toad does then so jump. !is is not for the hallucination to be accurate. It is of a horned toad jumping, true enough. But it is not of, does not depict, that bit of history, the surroundings of Sid's knee being as they then were. In a di#erent use of 'representation', the hallucination makes no representations in that regard. It is on a par here with Sid's cocktail napkin. In the hallucination, no particular case is brought under any generality. Such is another face of failure to e#ect representing-as. 3. !e Import of Appearing: In the end Siegel agrees (I think) that the facts about accuracy do not quite show what she wants. So she o#ers a second argument, an 'Argument from Appearing'. It begins with this premise: All visual perceptual experiences present clusters of properties as being instantiated. (p. 45) It ends with this conclusion: All visual perceptual experiences have content. (Ibid) !e $ller may make for a sort of validity. But this $rst premise clearly will not do. !e point of section 1 returns here. Visual experiences, at least where they are seeing, are awareness (so far as it extends) of the nonconceptual, things being as they are-that which instances generalities, and is not itself a generality to be instanced. Such is the function of perception, more generally of perceptual (e.g., visual) capacities. Its evolutionary value, such as it is lies here. !ings being as they are instances, is a case of, all sorts of generalities-of something, or some things, having whatever properties it, or they, have. !ings being as they visibly are is (inter alia) their instancing whatever such generalities are visibly instanced by their being as they are. !e function of perception is to allow the perceiver, by drawing on his conceptual capacities, to recognise such instancing where it occurs, so far as these capacities extend. Experiencing things being as they are is, ipso facto, experiencing their having whatever properties their being as they are is a case of having. It is thus to experience the historical instantiating of whatever properties are thus instantiated. Whether there is some determinate cluster of such properties is an issue we can leave aside. We can say, if we like, that experience presents (better confronts) us with particular instantiatings of properties, if this just means that it consists in witnessing some bits of history which are such instantiatings. It does not present us with those properties as instantiated, at least if that means presenting (identifying) them as (among) those which are instantiated by things being as they are. It does not present what does the instancing as that which would instance this or that such generality. It merely presents what does the instancing. It makes no representations, nor presentations, as to what would instance what. Siegel moves from her $rst premise to the conclusion that, for an experience E, there is a cluster of properties, F, such that "Necessarily: things are the way E presents them only if property cluster F is instantiated." But, in the case of perception, things are as an experience presents them just in case they are as they are (or, again, visibly are). For any cluster F, this requires F to be instantiated only if things are as they are only if F, and F being instantiated ensures that things are as presented only if for F to be instantiated is for things to be as they are. But we cannot suppose (nor would Siegel, for that matter) that, while perception has representational content, the way it represents things as being is always (no other than) just the way things are (or visibly are). We may leave the second argument at this point. 4. Illusions: Siegel thus leaves us with the usual question about the 'content view'. Why would anyone ever think such a thing? Ignoring the distinction between generalities and what instances them, or between representing-as and e-representing, perhaps. Or perhaps just in catching something going around. If, like Locke, one thought that perception was never of things in our surrounding, he might then, with Locke, posit sensed objects which represent these. But such brings us only to e-representing. And, in any case, presumably Siegel does not mean to be like Locke in these respects. Still, unworldly objects, Lockean or not, have some role to play in Siegel's story. No one thinks a gold$sh, or its bowl, represents anything as so. Nor does refraction. Nor does the bowl's appearance. Representing-as enters the picture, if at all, in the experiencing of such things. So there must be something in the experiencing, other than those things themselves, which makes this representing recognisable. Such an ingredient shows up, for Siegel, where what we experience is not what surrounds us, or its looks, but merely how things look to us- e.g. (as she conceives things) in hallucinations, or in experiencing other phenomena, such as phosphenes, or, perhaps, a"erimages. (Cf. p. 62) Such things might serve as vehicles of representing-as, were there but some representer whose vehicle they might be. But why think they do bring with them representing-as? Well, in one class of cases we speak of hallucinations as of such-and-such-e.g, of an empregada bearing a pastrami sandwich. Since it is an hallucination, there is no pastrami-bearing empregada for it to be of. So how could it be of such a thing? Compare pictures (of the wallhanging sort). Frege asked whether a picture, as bare visible object, could be true, and a leaf or a stone not true. (See 1918: ??.) His answer was: a picture could be true only if an intention attached to it. 'Intention' is, perhaps, not quite le mot juste. But there is what an intention might accomplish: to make the picture bear a certain understanding; be to be understood as relating to a certain way there is for things to be-e.g., such that Cologne Cathedral has three %ying buttresses. !e picture would relate to that way for things to be in this way: it would depict things as being that way (what it would be for things so to be). Here, then, we would $nd representing-as (though this need not be representing truly or falsely-representing the cathedral to be a certain way-and if it were, that it depicted the cathedral as with three %ying buttresses would not yet decide how things must be for it to have depicted truly. (It might, e.g., just depict a proposed change.) One might see some hallucinations as following pictures here. !e hallucination would be of a pastrami-bearing empragada in relating to a way for things to be-such that an emprageda is bearing pastrami. And it would do that, in the absence of any such empregada, in things being represented being that way in the relevant experiencing, whether by its object, or, perhaps, by its su#erer). As with pictures, this would not per se involve hallucinations in being true or false, accurate, or not. I have already given reasons not to see them so involved. If experiences are involved in such a way with ways for things to be, then just possibly some representing-a is going on. It would not follow automatically that it is the experience that is doing the representing; nor that its su#erer is being represented to. !ere are other candidates. But such issues I will not pursue further here. Perhaps some hallucinations do work like that. If so, one might point out, with the disjunctivist, that what relates experience to a way for things to be where, as in such cases, things are not that way (or their being so is not experienced) is not needed for so relating them where things are that way; so that, in such cases-ones of perception-there is no reason to take it to be present. But disjunctivism is, I think, a view with which Siegel has little sympathy. Charles Travis 2012 Bibliography: Frege, Gottlob, (unknown): "17 Kernsätze zur Logik", in Nachgelassene Schri#en (see below), pp. 189-190. _____ 1897: "Logik", Nachgelassene Schrifen, 2!" edition, Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1983, pp. 137-163. _____, 1918: "Der Gedanke", Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, V. 1, n. 2, 1918, pp. 58-77. Siegel, Susanna, !e Contents of Visual Experience, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.