Abstract
Some recently popular accounts of perception account for the phenomenal character of perceptual experience in terms of the qualities of objects. My concern in this paper is with naturalistic versions of such a phenomenal externalist view. Focusing on visual spatial perception, I argue that naturalistic phenomenal externalism conflicts with a number of scientific facts about the geometrical characteristics of visual spatial experience.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Here, and in what follows, my use of ‘in virtue of’ signifies a constitutive relation.
In what follows I shall use the term object as an umbrella term.
This intuition is often put as the claim that experience is transparent.
Chalmers Ibid. Thompson Ibid.
I shall explain what I mean by this in the relevant section.
Here and elsewhere by “experience” I mean perceptual experience unless otherwise indicated.
See Jackson (1977) for an instructive discussion of various ways to define a direct object.
On some views, perceptual experiences can have aspects that do not pertain to presenting qualities as qualities of objects. An example can help clarify this idea. Suppose that you are projecting an image on a screen. Compare two cases that you might say that you have a blurry visual experiences of the image. In the first case you experience the image as blurry, but in the second case experience it as perceived in a blurry manner; you do not experience the image as blurry. Your response to the first type of experience is to adjust the projector to get a sharper image. Your response to the second case might be to seek your eyeglasses. In the former cases blurriness would belong to the presentational phenomenal character of experience, but in the second case it would not. In the first case we can say that blurriness is part of the presentational phenomenal character of your experience. In the second case although blurriness is an aspect of the phenomenal character of your experience, it is not part of its presentational aspect. Those who are skeptical about the distinction are so probably because they think all cases of blurriness are presentational blurriness.
For the ease of exposition, I shall henceforth use “the properties of objects” in place of the “directly perceived properties and relations of objects”. The two locution should be taken as equivalent unless otherwise indicated.
See Jackson (1977) for an instructive discussion of various ways to define a direct object.
Proponents of these accounts do not always explicitly articulate this commitment. But the commitment is obvious given the way these accounts explain the qualitative character of experience.
Campbell (2002), Martin (2002). Naïve realists often hold that the metaphysical nature of non-veridical experiences need not be the same as veridical experiences. Their commitment to Inheritance is thus restricted to veridical experiences. Similarly, externalist representationalists who hold that perceptual experience is a matter of representing objects and their properties hold that.
Lycan (2001).
Chalmers (2004), Thompson (forthcominga, b).
See Masrour (forthcoming) for an extended defense of this claim.
Euclid’s version of the fifth postulate is slightly different, but it has been proven that it is equivalent to what is now called the parallel postulate.
Helmholtz showed that when subjects are asked to organize three points on a straight line the resulting configuration depends on the distance of the points from the observer’s point of view; it is concave for near points, convex for far points and straight for points located in intermediate distances.
Wagner (2005) provides an excellent summary of the literature on this topic.
The experiments where performed in a dark room.
We have to make the additional assumption that the projections are symmetric around the X axis.
The horizontal panel is an imaginary plane that passes through the subject’s eyes and extends forward parallel to the ground.
Foley performed the experiments two times, varying the distance of A from the subject. The average ratios were respectively 1.23 and 1.20 for the large and small configurations.
Shoemaker (2001).
For an extended defense of this claim see Masrour (under review).
See for example Tye (2009). I owe this last point to a discussion with Adam Pautz.
References
Ayer, A. J. (1956). The problem of knowledge. London: Macmillan.
Block, N. (1990). Inverted earth. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 53–79.
Block, N. (1996). Mental paint and mental latex. Philosophical Issues, 7, 19–49.
Block, N. (2003). Mental paint. In M. Hahn & B. Ramberg (Eds.), Reflections and replies: Essays on the philosophy of tyler burge. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Block, N. (2007). Wittgenstein and Qualia. Philosophical Perspectives, 21(1), 73–115.
Block, N. (2010). Attention and mental paint. Philosophical Issues, 20, 23–63.
Blumenfeld, W. (1913). Untersuchungen über die scheinbare Grosse in Schraume. Zeitshrift fur Psychologie, 65, 241–404.
Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2004). The representational character of experience. In B. Leiter (Ed.), The future for philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2006). Perception and the fall from Eden. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2011). The character of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chisholm, R. (1957). Perceiving. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fish, W. (2009). Perception, hallucination, and illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foley, J. M. (1972). The size-distance relation and the intrinsic geometry of visual space: Implications for processing. Vision Research, 12, 323–332.
Harman, G. (1990). The intrinsic quality of experience. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 31–52.
Helmholtz, H. (1962/1866). Physiological optics (trans: Southall, J. P. C.). New York: Dover.
Higashiyama, A. (1984). Curvature of binocular visual space: A modified method of right triangle. Vision Research, 24, 1713–1718.
Higashiyama, A., Ishikawa, T., & Tanaka, K. (1990). Visual alleys as a function of instructions under informative and reduced conditions of viewing. Perception & psychophysics, 47(5), 468–476.
Hill, C. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillebrand, F. (1902). Theorie der scheinbaren Grosse beim binokularen Sehen’, Denkschrift der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 72, 255–307.
Indow, T., Inoue, E., & Matsushima, K. (1962a). An experimental study of the Luneburg theory of binocular space perception (l), The 3- and 4-point experiments. Japanese Psychological Research, 4, 6–16.
Indow, T., Inoue, E., & Matsushima, K. (1962b). An experimental study of the luneburg theory of binocular space perception (2), the alley experiments. Japanese Psychological Research, 4, 17–24.
Indow, T., & Watanabe, T. (1988). Alleys on an extensive frontoparallel plane: A second experiment. Perception, 17, 647–666.
Ivry, R. B., & Cohen, A. (1987). The perception of doubly curved surfaces from intersecting contours. Perception & psychophysics, 41(4), 293–302.
Jackson, F. (1977). Perception: A representative theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.
Koenderink, J., et al. (2002). Large-scale visual frontoparallels under full-cue conditions. Perception, 31, 1467–1475.
Koenderink, J., et al. (2008). Exocentric pointing in depth. Vision Research, 48, 716–723.
Koenderink, J., et al. (2010). Does monocular visual space contain planes? Acta Psychologia, 134, 40–47.
Kriegel, U. (2002). Phenomenal content. Erkenntnis, 57, 175–198.
Kriegel, U. (2007). Intentional inexistence and phenomenal intentionality. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 307–340.
Kriegel, U. (2011). The sources of intentionality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langsam, H. (2011). The wonder of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Luneburg, R. K. (1947). Mathematical analysis of binocular vision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Luneburg, R. K. (1948). Metric methods in binocular visual perception, Studies and Essays. Courant Anniversary Volume, 215–240.
Luneburg, R. K. (1950). The metric of binocular visual space. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 40, 637–642.
Lycan, W. (2001). The case for phenomenal externalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 15, 17–35.
MacLeod, D., & Willen, J. (1995). Is there a visual space? In R. D. Luce & D’Zmura (Eds.), Geometric representations of perceptual phenomena. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Martin, M. G. F. (2002). The transparency of experience. Mind and Language, 17, 376–425.
McDowell, J. (1984). De re senses. In C. Wright (Ed.), Frege: Tradition and influence. Oxford: Blackwell Books.
McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McDowell, J. (2008). The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument. In F. Macpherson & A. Haddock (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–456.
Pautz, A. (2006). Sensory awareness is not a wide physical relation: An empirical argument against externalist intentionalism. Nous, 40, 205–240.
Pautz, A. (2010). Do theories of consciousness rest on a mistake? Philosophical Issues, 20, 333–367.
Peacocke, C. (1997). Sensation and the content of experience: A distinction. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates, 341.
Russell, B. (1997). The problems of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Originally published 1912.
Sellars, W. (1963). Phenomenalism. In Science Sellars (Ed.), Perception and reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shoemaker, S. (1994). Self-knowledge and “inner sense”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 249–314.
Shoemaker, S. (2001). Introspection and phenomenal character. Philosophical Topics, 28, 247–273.
Shoemaker, S. (2003). Content, character and color. Philosophical Issues, 13, 253–278.
Suppes, P. (1995). Some foundational problems in the theory of visual space. In R. D. Luce & D’Zmura (Eds.), Geometric representations of perceptual phenomena. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, B. (2003). The nature of phenomenal content. PhD Dissertation.
Travis, C. (2005). Frege, father of disjunctivism. Philosophical Topics, 33, 307–334.
Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tye, M. (2002). Representationalism and the transparency of experience. Nous, 36(1), 137–151.
Tye, M. (2009). Consciousness revisited. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wagner, M. (1985). The metric of visual space. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 483–495.
Wagner, M. (2005). The geometries of visual space. London: Erlbaum.
Wright, C. (2002). Anti-sceptics simple and subtle: G.E. Moore and John McDowell. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 330–348.
Wright, C. (2008). Comment on John McDowell’s ‘the disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument’. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Masrour, F. The geometry of visual space and the nature of visual experience. Philos Stud 172, 1813–1832 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0390-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0390-0