It is a familiar experience to perceive a material object as maintaining a stable shape even though it projects differently shaped images on our retina as we move with respect to it, or as maintaining a stable color throughout changes in the way the object is illuminated. We also perceive sounds as maintaining constant timbre and loudness when the context and the spatial relations between us and the sound source change over time. But where does this perceptual invariance ‘come from’? (...) What is it about our perceptual systems that makes them able to ‘transform’ incoming unstable and fluctuating sensory inputs into generally stable and coherent conscious experiences? And what exactly do we experience as invariant in cases like those described above? There are two main approaches to the Problem of Perceptual Invariance: the Local-Inferential approach and the Global-Structural approach. Although both approaches include an account of the sub-personal perceptual mechanisms ‘stabilizing’ variant and invariant components in incoming sensory stimulation and a proposal regarding the phenomenology of perceptual invariance, in this paper I argue that the latter provides a better solution to the problem overall. (shrink)

Timbre is that property of a sound that distinguishes it other than pitch and loudness, for instance the distinctive sound quality of a violin or flute. While the term is obscure, the concept has played an important, implicit role in recent philosophy of sound. Philosophers have debated whether to identify sounds with properties of waves, events, or objects. Many of the intuitive considerations in this debate apply most clearly to timbre qualities. Two prominent forms of timbre physicalism have emerged: one (...) identifying timbre with the spectral composition of proximal waves; the second identifying timbre with the mechanical vibrations at a sound source. I demonstrate that the first possibility is conceptually unsatisfying, while the second fails to meet the standards of rigor established by the color physicalism literature. One response to these worries might be to adopt a more modest, non-reductive realism about timbre, such as the ecological view of J. J. Gibson. (shrink)

La philosophie contemporaine a vu se développer les études consacrées au son et à l’audition. Il est devenu courant de rejeter la thèse héritée de Locke selon laquelle le son serait à ranger parmi les qualités secondes, et de le considérer plutôt comme un événement. Cependant, cette proposition soulève des questions : il faut en effet déterminer de quel type d’événement il s’agit, et de quelle manière il occupe l’espace. Différentes conceptions s’affrontent à ce propos : certaines théories font du (...) son un « pur événement », dont aucun objet physique ne serait le sujet, tandis que d’autres l’identifient à une perturbation physique. Parmi ces dernières, on distingue celles qui l’assimilent à la vibration du corps résonnant, de celles qui le considèrent comme une perturbation de l’air environnant. Sans prétendre trancher tous ces débats, le présent article examine ici certaines des difficultés que soulève une théorie particulièrement aboutie, celle de Roberto Casati et Jérôme Dokic. Il s’agit principalement de mettre à l’épreuve leur affirmation selon laquelle leur théorie se montre fidèle au contenu de l’expérience auditive quand elle assimile le son à la vibration du corps sonore, et qu’elle en fait donc un événement physique précisément localisé. La thèse soutenue est que si cette théorie répond de façon satisfaisante à bien des objections, en revanche elle ne prend pas la mesure du problème que constitue pour elle la réverbération du son. Casati et Dokic croient le résoudre grâce à leur analyse de l’écho, mais une description plus précise montre que la réverbération est difficilement conciliable avec leur théorie de la localisation du son. Cependant cet argument ne constitue pas à lui seul une objection décisive : il montre simplement que la réverbération exige une analyse spécifique, non réductible à celle de l’écho. (shrink)

Can philosophical theories of perception defer to perceptual science when fixing their ontological commitments regarding the objects of perception? Or in other words, can perceptual science inform us about the nature of perception? Many contemporary mainstream philosophers of perception answer affirmatively. However, in this essay I provide two arguments against this idea. On the one hand, I will argue that perceptual science is not committed to certain assumptions, relevant for determining perceptual ontology, which however are generally relied upon by philosophers (...) when interpreting such science. On the other hand, I will show how perceptual science often relies on another assumption, which I call the ‘Measuring instrument conception’ of sensory systems, which philosophers of perception should clearly reject. Given these two symmetric lines of argument, I will finally suggest that we ought to think differently about the relationship between perceptual science and the philosophy of perception. (shrink)