The potential information analysis of seeing

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):102–123 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX


I argue for a version of the causal analysis of seeing which I call the 'potential information' analysis. I proceed initially by considering some standard causal analyses, those of Tye and Jackson. I show that these analyses are too weak, for they allow cases of hallucination to count as seeing. I argue that what is central to seeing is that our visual experiences provide a means of gaining true beliefs about objects. This, however, does not mean that we must actually gain true beliefs about objects in any particular case. Rather, what must be the case is that a perceiver of our sort could gain true beliefs about objects on the basis of experiences like ours. I defend this analysis against various objections, making important qualifications to it as I do so



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

41 (#369,691)

6 months
2 (#1,157,335)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Perceiving: A Philosophical Study.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1957 - Ithaca,: Cornell University Press.
Perception: A Representative Theory.Frank Jackson - 1977 - Cambridge University Press.
Perception.Henry Habberley Price - 1932 - Westport, Conn.: Methuen & Co..
Perception And The Physical World.David Malet Armstrong - 1961 - New York,: Humanities Press.

View all 23 references / Add more references