The philosophical implications of the Perky experiments: reply to Hopkins

Analysis 72 (3):439-443 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Perky experiments are taken to demonstrate the phenomenal similarity between perception and visualization. Robert Hopkins argues that this interpretation should be resisted because it ignores an important feature of the experiments, namely, that they involve picture perception, rather than ordinary seeing. My aim is to point out that the force of this argument depends on one’s views on picture perception. On what I take to be the most mainstream account of picture perception, Hopkins’s argument does not work. But even if we accept Hopkins’s own account, we have good reasons to believe that his conclusion does not follow

Similar books and articles

What Perky did not show.Robert Hopkins - 2012 - Analysis 72 (3):431-439.
Picture perception and the two visual subsystems.Bence Nanay - 2008 - Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Pictures, Emotions, and the Dorsal/Ventral Account of Picture Perception.Gabriele Ferretti - 2017 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 8 (3):595-616.
Perceiving pictures.Bence Nanay - 2011 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (4):461-480.
Threefoldness.Bence Nanay - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (1):163-182.
Trompe l’oeil and the Dorsal/Ventral Account of Picture Perception.Bence Nanay - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (1):181-197.
Inflected and uninflected perception of pictures.Bence Nanay - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-03-13

Downloads
444 (#46,452)

6 months
79 (#67,273)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bence Nanay
University of Antwerp

References found in this work

Perceiving pictures.Bence Nanay - 2011 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (4):461-480.
On pictorial representation.Richard Wollheim - 1998 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (3):217-226.

Add more references