This article seeks the origin, in the theories of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), Descartes, and Berkeley, of two-stage theories of spatial perception, which hold that visual perception involves both an immediate representation of the proximal stimulus in a two-dimensional ‘‘sensory core’’ and also a subsequent perception of the three dimensional world. The works of Ibn al-Haytham, Descartes, and Berkeley already frame the major theoretical options that guided visual theory into the twentieth century. The field of visual (...) perception was the first area of what we now call psychology to apply mathematics, through geometrical models as used by Euclid, Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham, and Descartes (among others). The article shows that Kepler’s discovery of the retinal image, which revolutionized visual anatomy and entailed fundamental changes in visual physiology, did not alter the basic structure of theories of spatial vision. These changes in visual physiology are advanced especially in Descartes' Dioptrics and his L'Homme. Berkeley develops a radically empirist theory vision, according to which visual perception of depth is learned through associative processes that rely on the sense of touch. But Descartes and Berkeley share the assertion that there is a two-dimensional sensory core that is in principle available to consciousness. They also share the observation that we don't usually perceived this core, but find depth and distance to be phenomenally immediate, a point they struggle to accommodate theoretically. If our interpretation is correct, it was not a change in the theory of the psychology of vision that engendered the idea of a sensory core, but rather the introduction of the theory into a new metaphysical context. (shrink)

In the paper I argue that medieval philosophers proposed several notions of the senses’ activity in perception. I illustrate the point using the example of two Franciscan thinkers – Peter Olivi (ca. 1248–1298) and Peter Auriol (ca. 1280–1322). Olivi’s notion of active perception assumes that every perceptual act demands a prior focusing of the mind’s attention. Furthermore, Olivi is partially inspired by the extramissionist theories of vision and reinterprets the notion of a visual ray postulated by (...) them as a useful model for explaining attention and attentional shifts. In Auriol’s view, perception is active because it participates in producing a perceptual content. e senses not only receive information from the environment, they also actively process it and, in Auriol’s words, put the external object into apparent being. e peculiar feature of Auriol’s account is his obvious tendency to conceive perceptual content as both dependent on our perceptual activity and external to the senses. Finally, I consider the two theories in the context of mirror perception – while Olivi focused on the ability of mirrors to switch attention’s direction, Auriol investigated the metaphysical nature of mirror images. (shrink)

The relation-theory of mental acts proposes that a mental act is a kind of relative entity founded upon the mind and directed at the object of perception or thought. While most medieval philosophers recognized that there is something importantly relational about thought, they nevertheless rejected the view that mental acts are wholly relations. Rather, the dominant view was that a mental act is either in whole or part an Aristotelian quality added to the mind upon which such a (...) relation to the object can be founded. In this paper, I examine Durand of St.-Pourçain's defense of the relation-theory of mental acts against two objections raised against it: the first from John Duns Scotus, among others, and the second from an anonymous Thomist and Adam Wodeham. -/- . (shrink)

[Sensation, Causality, and Attention: Roger Bacon and Peter Olivi] This paper investigates what conditions are to be met for sensory perception to occur. It introduces two diff erent theories of perception that were held by two medieval Franciscan thinkers — namely, Roger Bacon (1214/1220–1292) and Peter Olivi (ca. 1248–1298). Bacon analyses especially the causal relation between the object and the sensory organ in his doctrine of the multiplication of species. In his view, a necessary condition of (...) perception is the reception of the species in a fully disposed sensory organ. On the contrary, Olivi stresses the active role of the sensory power. A necessary condition of sensation is the aspectus — i.e. the focus of our power’s attention on the object. Furthermore, the paper investigates whether and how each of the two thinkers can deal with the arguments proposed by his opponent — namely whether Bacon’s theory is able to explain attention and what the causal role of the object in Olivi’s theory is. (shrink)

This volume focuses on philosophical problems concerning sense perception in the history of philosophy. It consists of thirteen essays that analyse the philosophical tradition originating in Aristotle’s writings. Each essay tackles a particular problem that tests the limits of Aristotle’s theory of perception and develops it in new directions. The problems discussed range from simultaneous perception to causality in perception, from the representational nature of sense-objects to the role of conscious attention, and from the physical/mental divide (...) to perception as quasi-rational judgement. -/- The volume gives an equal footing to Greek, Arabic, and Latin philosophical traditions. It makes a substantial contribution not just to the study of the Aristotelian analysis of sense perception, but to its reception in the commentary tradition and beyond. Thus, the papers address developments in Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, Avicenna, John of Jandun, Nicole Oresme, and Sayf al-Din al-Amidi, among others. The result of this is a coherent collection that attacks a well-defined topic from a wide range of perspectives and across philosophical traditions. (shrink)

Two central accounts of human cognition emerge over the course of the Middle Ages: the theory of divine illumination and an Aristotelian theory centered on abstraction from sense data. Typically, these two accounts are seen as competing views of the origins of human knowledge; theories of divine illumination focus on God’s direct intervention in our epistemic lives, whereas Aristotelian theories generally claim that our knowledge derives primarily (or even entirely) from sense perception. In this paper, I address (...) an early attempt to reconcile these two accounts—namely, Robert Grosseteste’s commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics—and I argue that Grosseteste’s efforts to bring Aristotle’s account of human cognition into harmony with a theory of divine illumination proves both philosophically interesting and largely successful. Grosseteste’s claim that God does not directly illumine our intellects in this life opens his theory to the worry that Grosseteste leaves the divine out of his theory of divine illumination in the CPA. Steven Marrone, for example, holds that Grosseteste’s Aristotelian focus in this work causes him to abandon the theory of divine illumination he advocated in the earlier De veritate in favor of a modified theory of “human” illumination. I argue in contrast that Grosseteste does give God a role in human knowledge in the CPA—a role that allows human beings to remain largely responsible for the acquisition of knowledge while still requiring God’s illumination for actual cognition. In short, I conclude that, although human bodies interfere with God’s direct illumination of our intellects, God nevertheless plays a crucial ideogenic role in human cognition by illuminating the objects of our intellection and making them intelligible to us. (shrink)

Medieval Theories of Perception and the Activity of Senses in the Franciscan Context (in Czech). A book-length study (175.000 words) on Roger Bacon's, Peter Olivi's, and Peter Auriol's philosophy of perception.

This article discusses the theory of perception of Peter Auriol. Arguing for the active nature of the senses in perception, Auriol applies the Scotistic doctrine of objective being to the theory of perception. Nevertheless, he still accepts some parts of the theory of species. The paper introduces Auriol's view on the mechanism of perception and his account of illusions. I argue for a direct realist reading of Auriol's theory of perception and propose that his position (...) becomes clearer if we use the distinction between the first- and third-person perspectives which he seems to presuppose. (shrink)

Is vision merely a state of the beholder’s sensory organ which can be explained as an immediate effect caused by external sensible objects? Or is it rather a successive process in which the observer actively scanning the surrounding environment plays a major part? These two general attitudes towards visual perception were both developed already by ancient thinkers. The former is embraced by natural philosophers (e.g., atomists and Aristotelians) and is often labelled “intromissionist”, based on their assumption that vision is (...) an outcome of the causal influence exerted by an external object upon a sensory organ receiving an entity from the object. The latter attitude to vision as a successive process is rather linked to the “extramissionist” theories of the proponents of geometrical optics (such as Euclid or Ptolemy) who suggest that an entity – a visual ray – is sent forth from the eyes to the object. The present paper focuses on the contributions to this ancient controversy proposed by some 13th-century Latin thinkers. [...]. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Paul of Venice’s realist theory of direct knowledge. In the second half of the 13th century human knowledge was standardly viewed as a process of abstraction enabling the human intellect to grasp the essences of corporeal things, regardless of the matter in which they are embodied. This process was achieved thanks to the mediation of mental entities (species intelligibiles) representing the dematerialised objects in the intellect. By the late 13th and early 14th centuries, however, some authors (...) began to regard this account as unsatisfactory. These authors held that assuming the existence of mediating species (considered themselves as objects of knowledge) amounts to thinking that between ourselves and the world there is a barrier preventing us from acquiring knowledge of reality in itself. Paul of Venice is aware of the sceptical accusations made against the theory of species in the 13th and 14th centuries. Nevertheless, he is a firm advocate of the existence of species. He claims that knowledge, despite coming about through species, is not indirect. Quite the contrary: we have immediate access to reality, and the individual objects that constitute it, precisely because our senses (which are purely passive) receive impressions direct from outside, thanks to species. He points out that species are not object of knowledge. They are not known at all during the cognitive process, as they are a mere means (a mechanical means, so to say), not an image nor a representation of anything, and therefore they are no obstacle between ourselves and the world. Thus, we are able to know reality exactly as it is in itself and, under ordinary conditions, our perceptions are practically infallible and cannot produce false knowledge. (shrink)

A comparison of disjunctive theories of action and perception. The development of a theory of action that warrants the name, a disjunctive theory. On this theory, there is an exclusive disjunction: either an action or an event (in one sense). It follows that in that sense basic actions do not have events intrinsic to them.

ABSTRACT: The Reflexive Theory of Perception (RTP) claims that perception of an object or property X by an organism Z consists in Z being caused by X to acquire some disposition D toward X itself. This broadly behavioral perceptual theory explains perceptual intentionality and correct versus incorrect, plus successful versus unsuccessful, perception in a plausible evolutionary framework. The theory also undermines cognitive and perceptual modularity assumptions, including informational or purely epistemic views of perception in that, according (...) to the RTP, any X-caused and X-directed dispositions are genuinely perceptual—including affective, attitudinal, and immediately activated purely action-directed behavioral dispositions. Thus the RTP has the potential to provide the foundations for a broadly behavioral counter-revolution in cognitive science. (shrink)

Plato’s Theory of Perception This research deals with Plato's perceptual theory, as the perceptual theory in Plato's philosophy represents one of the steps of the Plato’s epistemology. Plato divided knowledge into four categories: Sensory knowledge, presumptive knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and rational knowledge. The theory of sensory perception is in the first place, so this research focuses on the statements, the meaning of perception, the senses, the difference between sensation and mind, the topics of sensory perception, and (...) the nature of the work of sensory perception. (shrink)

Medieval authors generally agreed that we have the freedom to choose among alternative possibilities. But most medieval authors also thought that there are situations in which one cannot do otherwise, not even will otherwise. They also thought when willing necessarily, the will remains free. The questions, then, are what grounds the necessity or contingency of the will’s acts, and – since freedom is not defined by the ability to choose – what belongs to the essential character of freedom, (...) the ratio libertatis. This article studies medieval theories of freedom without choice from William of Auxerre to William of Ockham and their background in Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Bernard of Clairvaux. (shrink)

This essay explains Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception using The Biological Framework for a Mathematical Universe proposed by Ronald Williams. According to Hoffman, what we perceive is more like a “desktop interface with icons representing complex underlying processes, rather than a direct window into the true nature of the world." The theory of a biological framework for a mathematical universes suggests that these complex underlying processes of “the desktop interface with icons” contain correspondences to biological systems. For example, (...) “the desktop icons” of the ocean’s arctic currents and the melting and freezing of Antartica contain “complex underlying processes” which mirror the processes of a circulatory system and beating heart. While indeed we do interpret reality from a superficial perspective as Hoffman suggests, our cognitive abilities are enhanced enough to recognize correspondences to these patterns pertaining to these biological systems which reveal the true nature of the world/universe/reality and thus highlight our evolved perceptual systems which can enable us how to recognize these patterns and organize ourselves to them in order to best survive it. Another example of a “desktop icon” is human society—the order and properties of human society contain “complex underlying processes” that are analogous to the order and properties of cellular society—thus “socioeconomic problems” can be understood through cellular economic problems. Moreover, the solution to the cellular economic problem is the solution to the socioeconomic problem. (shrink)

Some argue that Candrakīrti is committed to rejecting all theories of perception in virtue of the rejection of the foundationalisms of the Nyāya and the Pramāṇika. Others argue that Candrakīrti endorses the Nyāya theory of perception. In this paper, I will propose an alternative non-foundationalist theory of perception for Candrakīriti. I will show that Candrakrti’s works provide us sufficient evidence to defend a typical Prāsagika’s account of perception that, I argue, complements his core non-foundationalist ontology.

Augustine is commonly interpreted as endorsing an extramission theory of perception in De quantitate animae. A close examination of the text shows, instead, that he is committed to its rejection. I end with some remarks about what it takes for an account of perception to be an extramission theory and with a review of the strength of evidence for attributing the extramission the- ory to Augustine on the basis of his other works.

In this paper, I assess John McDowell's paper "Avoiding the Myth of the Given" (2009) (AMG) and its theory of epistemological openness to the world. I trace its motivations back to Kantian, Sellarsian and Aristotelean roots. I argue that McDowell subscribes to a kind of Holistic Theory of Rationality (HTR). To explain the HTR, I will analyze the Sellarsian notions of the "Manifest Image," the "Myth of the Given" and the "logical space of reasons." I argue that the holistic nature (...) of McDowell's theory gives it particular properties that put it in need of conservatism, because all the elements of the theory "hang together" - i.e. cohere - in a dangerous fashion. I argue that McDowell cannot afford big changes without upsetting the apple-cart. With this in mind, I shall assess the merits and demerits of AMG, and its modified theory of perceptual content, as an attempted conservative reform of HTR. I want to argue that, taken independently, AMG is a good and important change, but taken holistically it is non-conservative, and disruptive, of the McDowellian picture. Thus, if we wish to proceed with the McDowellian path, we are led to a choice between rejecting the local reform (and retreating back to an earlier version) or demanding further explanations of its global implications. (shrink)

Recently, the relationship between evolutionary ecology and perceptual science has received renewed attention under perception-mediated selection, a mode of natural selection linking perceptual saliency, rather than veridicality, to fitness. The Interface Theory of Perception (ITP) has been especially prominent in claiming that an organism’s perceptual interface is populated by icons, which arise as a function of evolved, species-specific perceptual interfaces that produce approximations of organisms’ environments through fitness-tuned perceptions. According to perception-mediated selection, perception and behavior calibrate (...) one another as organisms’ capacities to experience and know the objects and properties of their environments lead to responses highlighting certain environmental features selected for survival. We argue this occurs via the Umwelt/Umgebung distinction in ethology, demonstrating that organisms interact with their external environments (Umgebung) through constructed perceptual schema (Umwelt) that produce constrained representations of environmental objects and their properties. Following Peircean semiotics, we claim that ITP’s focus on icons as saliency-simplified markers corresponds to biosemiotics’ understanding of perceptual representations, which manifest as iconic (resembling objects), indexical (referring), or symbolic (arbitrary) modalities, which provide for organisms’ semiotic scaffolding. We argue that ITP provides the computational evidence for biosemiotics’ notion of iconicity, while biosemiotics provides explanation within ITP for how iconicity can build up into indices and symbols. The common contention of these separate frameworks that the process of perception tracks saliency rather than veridicality suggests that digital/dyadic perceptual strategies will be outcompeted by their semiotic/triadic counterparts. This carries implications for evolutionary theory as well as theories of cognition. (shrink)

In his book “Galileo’s Error”, Philip Goff lays out what he calls “foundations for a new science of consciousness”, which are decidedly anti-physicalist (panpsychist), motivated by a critique of Galileo’s distinction into knowable objective and unknowable subjective properties and Arthur Eddington’s argument for the limitation of purely structural (physical) knowledge. Here we outline an alternative theory, premised on the Interface Theory of Perception, that too subscribes to a “post-Galilean” research programme. However, interface theorists disagree along several lines. 1. They (...) note that Galileo’s distinction should be replaced by a truly non-dual account, referring to a difference of degree only. 2. They highly appreciate the role of mathematics, in particular when it comes to actually engage scientifically with consciousness. Some notable features of the interface theory are its skepticism towards our epistemic capacities and its rejection of the existence of a public, mind-independent reality. In addition, some interface theorists further employ a thin concept of “conscious agency” to ground their theory. The interface theory leaves open many of the problems of consciousness science (e.g. what is a “self”?) as questions for further (scientific, mathematical) research. (shrink)

According to the phenomenological argument for disjunctivism, the reasons why we should prefer the disjunctive theory over its rivals is that (1) the disjunctive theory conforms the most to our pretheoretical or natural convictions about perception (what Michael Martin calls naïve realism), and (2) we should commit ourselves to naïve realism because it conforms the most to the phenomenology of the perceptual experience of objects. In this paper, I try to explain why is the phenomenal argument exceptionally strong argument (...) for disjunctivism and at the same time against sense-datum and intentional theories. Furthermore, I try to show that the disjunctivist’s explanation of hallucination (which is allegedly the weak point of the theory) is as plausible as its rivals’. (shrink)

Richard Shusterman suggested that Maurice Merleau-Ponty neglected “‘lived somaesthetic reflection,’ that is, concrete but representational and reflective body consciousness.” While unsure about this assessment of Merleau-Ponty, lived somaesthetic reflection, or what the late Sam Mallin called “body phenomenology”—understood as a meditation on the body reflecting on both itself and the world—is my starting point. Another is John Dewey’s bodily theory of perception, augmented somewhat by Merleau-Ponty. -/- With these starting points, I spent roughly 20 hours with St. Benedict Restores (...) Life to a Young Monk (c. 1360), a work of tempera and gold leaf on panel, by Giovanni Del Biondo, active in Italy from 1356 to 1398, on display in the Art Gallery of Ontario’s permanent collection. Following Dewey’s suggestion that “[t]he eye ... is only the channel through which a total response takes place,” meaning that motor, emotional, intellectual and non-visual perceptual capacities become active when we encounter paintings, I describe how the work engaged a range of bodily modalities; and how reflecting on these, in turn, supplied phenomenal articulations of life negating, preserving and enhancing forces important in the culture that produced it, and famously discussed by Friedrich Nietzsche. By virtue of the approach adopted, I also demonstrate Dewey’s belief that intimate engagement with art entails a total coordination of one’s capacities around the artwork, while simultaneously reinforcing Merleau-Ponty’s ideas about perception and how we can find phenomenal articulations of concepts such as the Nietzschean ones just mentioned. While focusing on Del Biondo’s painting, my main purpose is to engage in body phenomenology practices, and to show, in the words of Shusterman, how “[w]e might sharpen our appreciation of art through more attention to our somaesthetic feelings involved in perceiving art” and indeed the world. (shrink)

It has become typical to read Kant and Merleau-Ponty as offering competing approaches to perceptual experience. Kant is interpreted as an ‘intellectualist’ who regards perception as conceptual ‘all the way out’, while Merleau-Ponty is seen as Kant’s challenger, who argues that perception involves non-conceptual, embodied ‘coping’. In this paper, however, I argue that a closer examination of their views of perception, especially with respect to the notion of ‘schematism’, reveals a great deal of historical and philosophical continuity (...) between them. By analyzing Kant’s theory of schematism, the interpretation of it by the Neo-Kantian Pierre Lachièze-Rey, and Merleau-Ponty’s theory of the body schema, we find that aspects of Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception are better understood as a development of Kant’s theory of perception. (shrink)

It is widely held by philosophers not only that there is a causal condition on perception but also that the causal condition is a conceptual truth about perception. One influential line of argument for this claim is based on intuitive responses to a style of thought experiment popularized by Grice. Given the significance of these thought experiments to the literature, it is important to see whether the folk in fact respond to these cases in the way that philosophers (...) assume they should. We test folk intuitions regarding the causal theory of perception by asking our participants to what extent they agree that they would ‘see’ an object in various Gricean scenarios. We find that the intuitions of the folk do not strongly support the causal condition; they at most strongly support a ‘no blocker’ condition. We argue that this is problematic for the claim that the causal condition is a conceptual truth. (shrink)

During the 13th century, several logicians in the Latin medieval tradition showed a special interest in the nature of impossibility, and in the different kinds or ‘degrees’ of impossibility that could be distinguished. This discussion resulted in an analysis of the modal concept with a fineness of grain unprecedented in earlier modal accounts. Of the several divisions of the term ‘impossible’ that were offered, one became particularly relevant in connection with the debate on ars obligatoria and positio impossibilis: the (...) distinction between ‘intelligible’ and ‘unintelligible’ impossibilities. In this article, I consider some 13th-century tracts on obligations that provide an account of the relation between impossibility and intelligibility and discuss the inferential principles that are permissible when we reason from an impossible – but intelligible – premise. I also explore the way in which the 13th-century reflection on this topic survives, in a revised form, in some early 14th-century accounts of positio, namely, those of William of Ockham, Roger Swineshead and Thomas Bradwardine. (shrink)

Disjunctivist views in the theory of perception hold that genuine perceptions differ in some relevant kind from misperceptions, such as illusions and hallucinations. In recent papers, Tyler Burge has argued that such views conflict with the basic tenets of perceptual psychology. According to him, perceptual psychology is committed to the view that genuine perceptions and misperceptions produced by the same proximal stimuli must be or involve perceptual states of the same kind. This, he argues, conflicts with disjunctivism. In this (...) paper, I defend epistemological disjunctivism from Burge’s inconsistency charge. To this end, I survey the perceptual psychological literature, and reveal that the perceptual kinds they tend to employ differ from and imply nothing about the kinds at issue for the epistemological disjunctivist. I then argue that Burge’s concerns with epistemological disjunctivism are best interpreted as motivated not by his commitment to empirical science, but instead by his views in epistemology and about human rationality. (shrink)

Much mainstream analytic epistemology is built around a sceptical treatment of modality which descends from Hume. The roots of this scepticism are argued to lie in Hume’s (nominalist) theory of perception, which is excavated, studied and compared with the very different (realist) theory of perception developed by Peirce. It is argued that Peirce’s theory not only enables a considerably more nuanced and effective epistemology, it also (unlike Hume’s theory) does justice to what happens when we appreciate a proof (...) in mathematics. (shrink)

Review of THEO C. MEYERING, Historical Roots of Cognitive Science : The Rise of a Cognitive Theory of Perception from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century. Boston: Kluwer, xix + 250 pp. $69.00. Examines the author's interpretation of Aristotelian theories of perceptual cognition, early modern theories, and Helmholtz's theory.

(Título: Por outras Historiografias, Filosofias, Sociologias, Antropologias, Teorias da História e Filosofias da História |||\\\ -/- Subtítulo: Três Ensaios sobre a ‘Antiguidade, a era Medieval, a Modernidade e a Pós-modernidade: Transições, Rupturas, Continuidades, Ligações e Interconexões) |||\\\ -/- (Title: For other Historiographies, Philosophies, Sociologies, Anthropologies, Theories of History and Philosophies of History |||\\\ -/- Subtitle: Three Essays on 'Antiquity, the Medieval Era, Modernity and Postmodernity: Transitions, Ruptures, Continuities, Links and Interconnections) |||\\\ -/- (Título: Para otras Historiografías, Filosofías, (...) Sociologías, Antropologías, Teorías de la Historia y Filosofías de la Historia |||\\\ -/- Subtítulo: Tres ensayos sobre 'La antigüedad, la época medieval, la modernidad y la posmodernidad: transiciones, rupturas, continuidades, vínculos e interconexiones') |||\\\ -/- (1. Tema: ‘O declínio e a queda do império romano,’ um equívoco interpretativo, linguístico, conceitual ou metodológico? Ou uma fluidez das percepções, narrativas e concepções estéticas do ‘Antigo frente ao Novo?’ |||\\\ -/- 'The decline and fall of the Roman Empire,' an interpretative, linguistic, conceptual or methodological misunderstanding? Or a fluidity of perceptions, narratives and aesthetic conceptions of the 'Old in the face of the New? |||\\\ -/- «Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano», ¿un malentendido interpretativo, lingüístico, conceptual o metodológico? ¿O una fluidez de percepciones, narrativas y concepciones estéticas de lo «Antiguo frente a lo Nuevo»?) |||\\\ -/- (2. Tema: O Antigo e Atual ritual de sacrifícios humanos aos Deuses e ou Divindades: Ritos que se repetem em novas roupagens, fórmulas e modus operandi. |||\\\ -/- The Ancient and Current Ritual of Human Sacrifice to the Gods and/or Divinities: Rites that are repeated in new guises, formulas and modus operandi. |||\\\ -/- El Ritual Antiguo y Actual del Sacrificio Humano a los Dioses y/o Divinidades: Ritos que se repiten con nuevos disfraces, fórmulas y modus operandi.) |||\\\ -/- (3. Tema: ‘Feudalismo erudito,’ ‘feudalismo rústico’ e ‘feudalismo pós moderno:’ termos com sutis interconexões e em práticas também sutis na atualidade capitalista |||\\\ -/- Erudite feudalism,' 'rustic feudalism' and 'pos-tmodern feudalism:' terms with subtle interconnections and in equally subtle practices in today's capitalist world. |||\\\ -/- 'Feudalismo erudito', 'feudalismo rústico' y 'feudalismo posmoderno': términos con sutiles interconexiones y en prácticas igualmente sutiles en el mundo capitalista actual.).|||\\\ -/- Apresentação sobre e dos três Ensaios - ||| - \\\ - ||| -/- Durante certos períodos de estudos, sempre ouvi falar sobre a ascensão, declínio e queda do império romano, o período romano monárquico, republicano e imperial. E atrelado a esses assuntos, outros não menos importantes, tais como a era ou período medieval, sistema feudal, feudalismos, capitalismo, era ou período moderno ou da modernidade e a pós-modernidade. Talvez esta última seja a nossa contemporaneidade. Geralmente há alguns consensos e também certas dissenções ou polêmicas sobre tais temas, assuntos, seus conteúdos e demarcações históricas. Até então estamos falando apenas da historiografia e de suas produções. Entretanto, é notório que é difícil falar de historiografia sem recorrer a arqueologia, sociologia, filosofia, filologia, antropologia, epigrafia, linguística, geografia, biologia, artes e dentre outras. Isso porque a historiografia necessita do auxílio e apoio dessas como de tantas outras áreas de estudos para investigar seus objetos e fontes, e assim extrair seus conteúdos, interpretações e compor os dados e achados durante os procedimentos e processos de estudos e análises das fontes e de seus dados. Portanto, é bastante difícil falar em historiografia sem reconhecer a necessidade de suporte de outras inúmeras áreas e campos de estudos e de produção de conhecimentos. Ou seja, há intercâmbios diretos e indiretamente tanto para e em modos de olhares investigativos, conceituais, métodos e outros instrumentos quanto de ferramentas para e de análises de dados e fontes. Enfim, há certa composição multidisciplinar para a prática da historiografia quanto para a formação de seus ‘produtos.’ Sendo assim, realizar um ensaio sobre a ascensão, declínio e queda do império romano, o período romano monárquico, republicano e imperial. E atrelado a esses assuntos, outros não menos importantes, tais como a era ou período medieval, sistema feudal, feudalismos, capitalismo, era ou período moderno ou da modernidade e a pós-modernidade, não é uma tarefa fácil. Ainda mais investigar questões, assuntos e conteúdos que dizem respeito as práticas de magias, de rituais e de sacrifícios ao longo da história, bem como novos olhares sobre o sistema feudal e relacionar todos estes fatos com a contemporaneidade. Até porque de alguma forma, todos esses fatos, acontecimentos e processos do passado ou mundo antigo, tem influências e relações com muitas práticas e modos de ser, pensar e agir na atualidade. E por isso também eles são importantes de serem reanalisados, estudados continuamente e revistos através e por meio das novas tecnologias e os novos olhares que elas podem nos proporcionar. Porém, sem incorrermos em anacronismos. Com isso, é de suma importância abrirmos novos olhares, horizontes, possibilidades e perspectivas para reinvestigar tais assuntos e eventos históricos mencionados, seus conteúdos, fontes e produtos. E assim, quem sabe talvez possamos extrair novas informações, conteúdos e saberes que possam cooperar com nossas sociedades na e da contemporaneidade. É importante dizer que, quando incluímos em tais temas, assuntos e seus conteúdos, áreas, disciplinas ou campos de estudos como a filosofia, a sociologia, a antropologia, a geografia, a filologia, a arqueologia, a biologia, a epigrafia, as artes e dentre outras, a discussão se torna ainda maior, mais complexa e gerando também maiores problemáticas. Entretanto, isso não inviabiliza tal abordagem e ação, muito pelo contrário, é justamente melhor que isso ocorra sobre tais assuntos, temas e seus conteúdos a serem estudados, pois os tornam mais ricos, amplos e abertos, e não fechados e isolados em si mesmos. Logo, é de suma relevância e importância, bem como de grande urgência se evocar, invocar e complementar tais investigações auxiliadas pelas vias da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, isso para não se correr riscos de se cair em dogmatismos, apologias ou doutrinas dentro dos grupos ou guetos de tais áreas ou campos de saber. Já que é um fato e realidade a existência de correntes e ‘vertentes’ historiográficas, históricas, sociológicas, filosóficas, antropológicas e assim por diante. Ou seja, como dentre outras, bem como também em outras áreas de estudo ou campos do saber. E por isso a importância da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, pois se dificultam os processos e formações de dogmatismos, apologias, doutrinas, paradigmas engessados, diretrizes ultra ou extremamente conservadoras de certos status quo e de cânones postos em certos pedestais. Desse modo, há certas correntes com suas convenções, consensos, seus paradigmas e diretrizes, no qual as seguem, e assim elas criam quase que amarras ou emolduram alguns assuntos, temas e seus conteúdos históricos. No qual as discussões ficam por décadas como as mesmas, com raros casos em que alguns daqueles temas, assuntos ou conteúdos recebem algum novo tratamento e talvez novas considerações, ou às vezes nenhum ou nenhuma. Permanecendo quase que os mesmos ou intactos como uma moldura a ser preservada, até que surja alguém que ouse remexê-los, trazer alguma novidade e inovações. Se algo não for feito, tudo fica do mesmo modo por décadas. Tais fatos ocorrem com e em muitas outras áreas e campos do saber, ou seja, não é apenas um fato na historiografia, sociologia, filosofia, antropologia e outras. É justamente por tudo isso que ousamos escrever um ensaio, no caso aqui três, envolvendo questões, assuntos, temas, conteúdos, novas reflexões e produções que giram em torno da antiguidade até a contemporaneidade, e sobretudo novas abordagens e produções sobre a era do império romano desde a monarquia aos tempos do império; sobre a era feudal do ou com o seu ‘início no séc. V d.C. até o séc. XV d.C., bem como sobre práticas e manifestações místicas, mágicas, ritualísticas e sacrificiais contemplando a antiguidade até a contemporaneidade. No qual lançamos mais luz em pequenos detalhes que talvez tenham passado desapercebidos em alguns escritos ou produções historiográficas, onde o fizemos com auxílio da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, onde denominamos de ‘Por outras Historiografias, Filosofias, Sociologias, Antropologias, Teorias da História e Filosofias da História.’ Nossa ação, movimento e intervenção se dá justamente pelos fatos aqui apontados e criticados, que ocorrem devido aos seus consensos, convenções e porque não dizer: dogmas, apologias ou doutrinas. Uma vez que, como já mencionado, muitas das produções sejam da historiografia, sociologia, antropologia e até mesmo da filosofia, infelizmente, estão repletas de dogmas, doutrinas, apologias de teorias, teóricos e de certos cânones que são idolatrados mais do que o fazer científico e a produção de novos conhecimentos. Nosso trabalho talvez não possua um caráter acadêmico ou científico, já que é um ensaio talvez hipotético, de novas observações, visões, possibilidades e perspectivas. Mas que não renunciou ao rigor em e nos estudos, investigações e coletas de dados para a produção de um construto que comungue e dialogue com as produções de caráter científicas e acadêmicas. Infelizmente nós brasileiros ainda possuímos muitos novos horizontes quase pouco ou nunca explorados, isso por e em muitas de nossas áreas e produções de conhecimentos e científicas, onde quase não há grandes e efetivos incentivos, e muito menos para se ousar fazer e produzir tais conhecimentos. Às vezes com pequenas exceções e para alguns grupos e guetos seletos, geralmente já beneficiados com vastos recursos. Vale ainda dizer que mesmo assim e com tudo isso, boa parte do saber e da produção de conhecimentos e científicos do país, infelizmente foi, se tornou e ainda é bastante dependente e submisso das produções, arcabouços e cânones euramericanos. E isso dificulta ainda mais as produções, incentivos e inovações da produção de conhecimentos e científicos do e no Brasil. Já que o que é produzido aqui, geralmente em boa medida é uma reprodução dos produtos daqueles quanto a ânsia da chancela, legitimação, autorização e aprovação daqueles sobre as produções dos daqui do país. Ou seja, o Brasil parece que fica a certa mercê ou a espera de aprovações, legitimações e chancelas das ‘autoridades cientificas e dos saberes euramericanos.’ E assim, infelizmente em muitos casos nos tornamos mais reprodutores de ideias, teorias, conteúdos, métodos, paradigmas e diretrizes, bem como sintetizadores e resumidores das ideias deles, talvez até mesmo nos posicionemos como meros copistas das produções euramericanas. Foi através e por meio de tais observações, percepções, inquietações e críticas que passei a ler, reler e examinar certos cânones teóricos e bibliográficos com mais atenção e pelo crivo da criticidade. Isso sob olhares não etnocêntricos, e nem tão pouco eurocêntricos e ou ocidentais. Onde com o auxílio da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, bem como e inclusive também da e entre as várias correntes das áreas de estudos da historiografia, sociologia, filosofia e antropologia, passei a reanalisar certos eventos históricos e da historiografia, me apoiando em várias áreas ou campos do saber e ou do conhecimento, tal como a biologia, geografia, política, análises do discurso, teologia, ciência da religião, linguística e dentre outras. E com isso, os objetos observados e analisados foram nos mostrando novos conteúdos, novos fenômenos, novos movimentos e nos proporcionando também novos olhares sobre tais objetos e seus dados a serem observados, estudados e analisados. Sendo assim, surgiu os três ensaios aqui em tela e em discussão. No qual colocamos sobre a crítica se realmente o império romano do ocidente declinou e caiu, bem como o que seria esse declinar e cair. Se realmente podemos marcar e demarcar as datas convencionais e consensuais ou podemos especular em hipóteses outras novas. Inclusive se podemos talvez estender tal declínio, se é que houve, bem como a sua queda, para datas mais adiantes do suposto ocorrido. Estas hipóteses, especulações e possibilidades geraram o ensaio de título ou tema: ‘O declínio e a queda do império romano,’ um equívoco interpretativo, linguístico, conceitual ou metodológico? Ou uma fluidez das percepções, narrativas e concepções estéticas do ‘Antigo frente ao Novo?’ A segunda reflexão crítica sobre acontecimentos, períodos, fenômenos, fatos, movimentos, eventos e narrativas historiográficas e sociológicas foram sobre manifestações, processos e práticas místicas, mágicas e ritualísticas ao longo da história, da antiguidade até a contemporaneidade, no qual surgiu o ensaio com o título ou tema: O Antigo e Atual ritual de sacrifícios humanos aos Deuses e ou Divindades: Ritos que se repetem em novas roupagens, fórmulas e modus operandi. E o último ensaio faz reflexões críticas sobre o período medieval com seu suposto feudalismo e ou sistema feudal. Onde trazemos novas reflexões sobre a prática feudal ou de feudos, demonstrando que tais práticas eram além de mais antiga do que pensamos, elas eram comuns, normal e naturais em vários sentidos, âmbitos e aspectos, e isso ocorrendo em muitas sociedades, culturas e civilizações desde a era romana monárquica, republicana e imperial e que se tornou em um sistema, o feudal, dentro da era tida como medieval (que possuo certas críticas a ambos os conceitos e seus pejorativismos). Através disso desenvolvemos três novas categorias de feudos ou de práticas feudais: o feudo erudito, o feudo rústico e os elementos feudais na contemporaneidade. Ora, o sistema feudal ou feudalismo não era ou foi apenas uma nomenclatura com certo ar pejorativo, mas sim um sistema econômico e ‘financeiro (até mesmo comercial)’ baseado e fundamentado na produção rural e ou do campo, seus insumos, matérias primas, mão de obra barata e escrava, no poderio militar ou de milicias, bem como e sobretudo posse e poderio da terra e de quem as obtém em grandes quantidades e extensões, em certa política descentralizada, na organização de uma sociedade estamental e sua divisão social em determinados grupos, os sem terras e os donos de muitas terras. E esse sistema econômico não surgiu do nada e nem do acaso, mas teve suas origens nas práticas feudais eruditas e rústicas, dando origem a um sistema, o feudal. E que ainda hoje podemos ver elementos de suas práticas, no qual resistiram a era capitalista, a modernidade e onde certos elementos feudais foram incorporados e reelaborados desde o surgimento do sistema capitalista até a contemporaneidade, e assim tais elementos avançaram com e em novas formas, roupagens e fórmulas pelo capitalismo. No qual ainda é um fato a relação de donos de grandes extensões de terras com poder, política, riquezas, conflitos, milicias e guerras. Se tais fatos dos resquícios ou elementos feudais não fossem reais, países da Europa em pleno século XXI não teriam ou manteriam ainda sua dominação sob colônias na África, Ásia e até mesmo nas Américas, bem como tentando as recolonizar ou neocolonizar, inclusive em outras regiões do globo, como assim ‘bem’ o faz os EUA desde o fim do século XIX, início do XX até a atualidade. Colonização e expansão de domínio e poder, bem como exploração e expropriação de mãos de obra, terras, matérias primas etc. Fundamentalmente a dominação de terras nacionais e sobretudo alheias, bem como a exploração das mesmas e de seus povos presos nas mesmas, digo ao sistema de seus países. Ou seja, o sistema capitalista também utiliza elementos das práticas feudais. Entretanto, de modos reformulados, personalizados e atualizados conforme seus interesses, do capitalismo e das classes ou grupos dominantes, e das necessidades contextuais para cumprir as metas de tal sistema, o capitalista e seus ditames. A estas reflexões críticas surgiu o ensaio: ‘Feudalismo erudito,’ ‘feudalismo rústico’ e ‘feudalismo pós-moderno:’ termos com sutis interconexões e em práticas também sutis na atualidade capitalista. Para que os leitores já pudessem adentrar nos temas, assuntos, conteúdos, fatos e discussões, isso em certa cronologia, foi colocado de antemão os resumos de cada ensaio e seus respectivos temas. Com isso, o leitor poderá observar certas conexões ou interligações entre tais acontecimentos, processos, fatos e fenômenos sócio-históricos, políticos, econômicos, culturais etc. E não apenas entre ou na transição da antiguidade para a era medieval e moderna, mas também daquelas com seus resquícios na e para a contemporaneidade. Entretanto, há um grande problema que precisaremos superar continuamente, é que ao longo da história, muitas das narrativas e produções históricas e historiográficas são e ou estão repletas de eufemismos, de jogos de linguagens e inundados neles, nos referidos. E isso consegue mascarar ideologias dominantes, hegemônicas, colonialistas, antagonismos, alienações, contradições e até mesmo certos paradoxos (como observaremos nos textos dos ensaios). Sendo assim, tais eufemismos conseguem como que ‘em passes de mágicas,’ criarem muitas ilusões e confusões nos prováveis e possíveis entendimentos, percepções, compreensões, concepções e ideias entre os fatos e as realidades, e tudo isso feito intencionalmente. Portanto, essas produções fantasiadas com os eufemismos e seus jogos de linguagens criam certas ‘ilusões de ‘óticas’ e em suas mágicas,’ no qual confundem vários leitores e estudiosos descuidados com esses instrumentos e ferramentadas metodológicas logocêntricas, grafocentricas e verborrágicas. Logo, tais fatos geram inúmeras confusões e conflitos intelectivos, de reflexões lógicas e de fatos que verdadeiramente correspondam com as realidades sociais e históricas. O trabalho em tela fará justamente o esforço de superar tais embaraços e armadilhas, filtrando e sintetizando as reflexões e interpretações extraídas das bibliografias e as relacionando com outras áreas, campos e saberes, e os submetendo ao crivo da lógica e da crítica. (shrink)

What do we see when we look at someone's expression of fear? I argue that one of the things that we see is fear itself. I support this view by developing a theory of affect perception. The theory involves two claims. One is that expressions are patterns of facial changes that carry information about affects. The other is that the visual system extracts and processes such information. In particular, I argue that the visual system functions to detect the affects (...) of others when they are expressed in the face. I develop my theory by drawing on empirical data from psychology and brain science. Finally, I outline a theory of the semantics of affect perception. (shrink)

As so often in philosophy, the title not only lays down the battle line but exposes the author’s biases and mistakes, since whether or not we can make sense of the language game ‘Seeing things as they are’ and whether it’s possible to have a ‘philosophical’ ‘theory of perception’ (which can only be about how the language of perception works), as opposed to a scientific one, which is a theory about how the brain works, are exactly the issues. (...) This is classic Searle—superb and probably at least as good as anyone else can produce, but lacking a full understanding of the fundamental insights of the later Wittgenstein and with no grasp of the two systems of thought framework, which could have made it brilliant. As in his previous work, Searle largely avoids scientism but there are frequent lapses and he does not grasp that the issues are always about language games, a failing he shares with nearly everyone. After providing a framework consisting of a Table of Intentionality based on the two systems of thought and thinking and decision research, I give a detailed analysis of the book. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

Many philosophers believe that there is a causal condition on perception, and that this condition is a conceptual truth about perception. A highly influential argument for this claim is based on intuitive responses to Gricean-style thought experiments. Do the folk share the intuitions of philosophers? Roberts et al. (2016) presented participants with two kinds of cases: Blocker cases (similar to Grice’s case involving a mirror and a pillar) and Non-Blocker cases (similar to Grice’s case involving a clock and (...) brain stimulation). They found that a substantial minority agreed that seeing occurs in the Non-Blocker cases, and that in the Blocker cases significantly less agreed that seeing occurs. They thus hypothesized that folk intuitions better align with a no blocker condition than with a causal condition. This paper continues this line of enquiry with two new experiments. The paper investigates the generality and robustness of Roberts et al.’s findings by expanding the sense modalities tested from only vision to audition and olfaction as well. The paper also uses Gricean-style thought experiments as a case study for investigating the “reflection defense” against the negative project in experimental philosophy. Our results replicate and extend Roberts et al.’s study and support their hypothesis that folk intuitions better align with a no blocker condition. They also provide an empirical reason to doubt the reflection defense. (shrink)

Introduction & Objectives: Norwich’s Entropy Theory of Perception (1975 [1] -present) stands alone. It explains many firing-rate behaviors and psychophysical laws from bare theory. To do so, it demands a unique sort of interaction between receptor and brain, one that Norwich never substantiated. Can it now be confirmed, given the accumulation of empirical sensory neuroscience? Background: Norwich conjoined sensation and a mathematical model of communication, Shannon’s Information Theory, as follows: “In the entropic view of sensation, magnitude of sensation is (...) regarded as a measure of the entropy or uncertainty of the stimulus signal” [2]. “To be uncertain about the outcome of an event, one must first be aware of a set of alternative outcomes” [3]. “The entropy-establishing process begins with the generation of a [internal] sensory signal by the stimulus generator. This is followed by receipt of the [external] stimulus by the sensory receptor, transmission of action potentials by the sensory neurons, and finally recapture of the [response to the internal] signal by the generator” [4]. The latter “recapture” differentiates external from internal stimuli. The hypothetical “stimulus generators” are internal emitters, that generate photons in vision, audible sounds in audition (to Norwich, the spontaneous otoacoustic emissions [SOAEs]), “temperatures in excess of local skin temperature” in skin temperature sensation [4], etc. Method (1): Several decades of empirical sensory physiology literature was scrutinized for internal “stimulus generators”. Results (1): Spontaneous photopigment isomerization (“dark light”) does not involve visible light. SOAEs are electromechanical basilar-membrane artefacts that rarely produce audible tones. The skin’s temperature sensors do not raise skin temperature, etc. Method (2): The putative action of the brain-and-sensory-receptor loop was carefully reexamined. Results (2): The sensory receptor allegedly “perceives”, experiences “awareness”, possesses “memory”, and has a “mind”. But those traits describe the whole human. The receptor, thus anthropomorphized, must therefore contain its own perceptual loop, containing a receptor, containing a perceptual loop, etc. Summary & Conclusions: The Entropy Theory demands sensory awareness of alternatives, through an imagined brain-and-sensory-receptor loop containing internal “stimulus generators”. But (1) no internal “stimulus generators” seem to exist and (2) the loop would be the outermost of an infinite nesting of identical loops. (shrink)

The condition of ‘genuine perceptual synaesthesia’ has been a focus of attention in research in psychology and neuroscience over the last decades. For subjects in this condition stimulation in one modality automatically and consistently over the subject’s lifespan triggers a percept in another modality. In hearing→colour synaesthesia, for example, a specific sound experience evokes a perception of a specific colour. In this paper, I discuss questions and challenges that the phenomenon of synaesthetic experience raises for theories of perceptual (...) experience in general, and for theories thatsee the content and modality of conscious experience as being constituted and determined by the active and skilful exploration of the environment in particular. The focus of my paper will be on the latter, ‘enactive’ view of perception and its theory of what determines the modality-specific ‘feel’ of a perceptual experience. (shrink)

This paper examines the evolution of Husserl’s philosophy of nonintuitive intentions. The analysis has two stages. First, I expose a mistake in Husserl’s account of non-intuitive acts from his 1901 Logical Investigations. I demonstrate that Husserl employs the term “signitive” too broadly, as he concludes that all non-intuitive acts are signitive. He states that not only meaning acts, but also the contiguity intentions of perception are signitive acts. Second, I show how Husserl, in his 1913/14 Revisions to the Sixth (...) Logical Investigation, amends his 1901 theory of non-intuitive acts, which he now calls “empty” intentions. He there accurately distinguishes empty meaning acts from the empty intentions of perception. In the conclusion, I reveal how Husserl’s alterations to his theory of non-intuitive intentions can inform our understanding of a larger shift in his philosophy. (shrink)

Wilfrid Sellars claims that a scientific account of human beings will find it necessary to postulate a new type of basic particular, which he calls sensa. It is not entirely clear what are the reasons for which Sellars makes this claim. Sellars makes this claim. This thesis seeks to answer this question, and subsequently to evaluate what it finds to be Sellars' argument for sensa. Three possible arguments are distinguished. The argument from the homogeneity of colours ls taken to be (...) Sellars' principal argument. A key premise this argument ls that colours, because of their ultimate homogeneity, cannot be reduced to complexes of scientific properties and relations. This premise involves a principle of reducibility which close scrutiny reveals to be more problematic than it initially appears. The conclusion ls that the argument for sensa fails because it relies on an unjustified application of the principle. (shrink)

Beauty is evil, a surreptitious diversion of earthly delights planted by the devil, according to the third century theologian-philosopher Tertullian. Beauty is a manifestation of the divine on earth, according to another third century philosopher, Plotinus. Could these two really be talking about the same thing? That beauty evokes an experience of pleasure is probably the only point on which all participants in the continuing debate on beauty agree. But what kinds of pleasure one considers relevant to an experience of (...) beauty, is the crux of the problem of beauty. In ancient, medieval and eighteenth century philosophy, the problem of beauty was framed by the larger concern of what constituted a good life. The question regarding the nature of beauty was answered with a view to its role in achieving the good life for those who cultivated its apprehension. In the twentieth century, philosophers framed the problem of beauty as a problem for conceptual analysis. The questions asked were: Is beauty subjective or objective? Are there properties in the object that count towards beauty in all cases; that are sufficient or necessary for an object to be judged beautiful? What kind of pleasure is the pleasure we experience of beauty? I will examine how these questions can be seen to have been answered by earlier philosophical traditions and then I will use these questions as a guide to developing an explanatory theory of beauty based on contemporary theories of perception. (shrink)

An important objection to signaling approaches to representation is that, if signaling behavior is driven by the maximization of usefulness, then signals will typically carry much more information about agent-dependent usefulness than about objective features of the world. This sort of considerations are sometimes taken to provide support for an anti-realist stance on representation itself. The author examines the game-theoretic version of this skeptical line of argument developed by Donald Hoffman and his colleagues. It is shown that their argument only (...) works under an extremely impoverished picture of the informational connections that hold between agent and world. In particular, it only works for cue-driven agents, in Kim Sterelny’s sense. In cases in which the agents’ understanding of what is useful results from combining pieces of information that reach them in different ways, and that complement one another, maximizing usefulness involves construing first a picture of agent-independent, objective matters of fact. (shrink)

We briefly present Jocelyn Benoist’s (2011) Wittgensteinian contextualist approach to perception as we understand it and make some comments.

This paper reveals errors within Norwich et al.’s Entropy Theory of Perception, errors that have broad implications for our understanding of perception. What Norwich and coauthors dubbed their “informational theory of neural coding” is based on cybernetics, that is, control and communication in man and machine. The Entropy Theory uses information theory to interpret human performance in absolute judgments. There, the continuum of the intensity of a sensory stimulus is cut into categories and the subject is shown exemplar (...) stimuli of each category. The subject must then identify individual exemplars by category. The identifications are recorded in the Garner-Hake version of the Shannon “confusion matrix”. The matrix yields “H”, the entropy (degree of uncertainty) about what stimulus was presented. Hypothetically, uncertainty drops as a stimulus lengthens, i.e. a plot of H vs. stimulus duration should fall monotonically. Such “adaptation” is known for both sensation and firing rate. Hence, because “the physiological adaptation curve has the same general shape as the psychophysical adaptation curve”, Norwich et al. assumed that both have the same time course; sensation and firing rate were thus both declared proportional to H. However, a closer look reveals insurmountable contradictions. First, the peripheral neuron hypothetically cannot fire in response to a stimulus of a given intensity until after somehow computing H from its responses to stimuli of various intensities. Thus no sensation occurs until firing rate adapts, i.e. attains its spontaneous rate. But hypothetically, once adaptation is complete, certainty is reached and perception ends. Altogether, then, perception cannot occur until perception is over. Secondly, sensations, firing rates, and H’s are empirically not synchronous, contrary to assumption. In sum, the core concept of the cybernetics-based Entropy Theory of Perception, that is, that uncertainty reduction is the basis for perception, is irrational. (shrink)

This chapter considers how Liberal Naturalism interacts with the main problems and theories in the philosophy of perception. After briefly summarising the traditional philosophical problems of perception and outlining the standard philosophical theories of perceptual experience, it discusses whether a Liberal Naturalist outlook should incline one towards or away from any of these standard theories. Particular attention is paid to the work of John McDowell and Hilary Putnam, two of the most prominent Liberal Naturalists, whose (...) work was also very influential in the philosophy of perception. There is also a section focusing on colour, an especially important topic not only for debates about perceptual experience but also for debates concerning how our ‘manifest image’ of the natural world relates to our best theories in the physical sciences. (shrink)

There is a long‐standing project in psychology the goal of which is to explain our ability to perceive speech. The project is motivated by evidence that seems to indicate that the cognitive processing to which speech sounds are subjected is somehow different from the normal processing employed in hearing. The Motor Theory of speech perception was proposed in the 1960s as an attempt to explain this specialness. The first part of this essay is concerned with the Motor Theory's explanandum. (...) It shows that it is rather hard to give a precise account of what the Motor Theory is a theory of. The second part of the essay identifies problems with the theory's explanans: There are difficulties in finding a plausible account of what the content of the Motor Theory is supposed to be. (shrink)

In this essay, our goal is to discover science in Martin Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, lecture notes for his 1935 summer semester course, because, after all, his subject is metaphysica generalis, or ontology, and this could be construed as a theory of the human brain. Here, by means of verbatim quotes from his text, we attempt to show that indeed these lectures can be viewed as suggestion for an objective scientific theory of human perception, the human capacity for deciphering (...) phenomena, ie. hermeneutics in its broadest sense. His added notes from the 1953 edition, all of which are comments, not corrections, imply that he never abandoned these thoughts on metaphysics, despite all of his utterances about a need to overcome it, and their popular interpretations to that effect. In his presentation, he further develops the colorful and intuitive style, an hermeneutic language, that he had created in his earlier work Being and Time. Of human existence he speaks in such expressions as being-there -- ``Dasein" -- and being-in-the-world, the latter term no longer explicit in the 1935 lectures. The lectures can be read as a pre-scientific analysis of how man, being-there, perceives his environment, artfully managing to deal with the manifold challenges posed by the phenomenal structures of the universe. Man attentively recognizes and deciphers their pre-linguistic contents and, while trying to make sense of it all, puts into words his awareness. There are numerous passages in Heidegger's work where he in fairly concrete terms provides us with hints for a perceptive science that, as it turns out and is demonstrated below in this essay, can be explained in terms of recent advances in neuroscience. It would be implausible, even unthinkable, unimaginable, for there not to be found essential agreement between on one hand his philosophical insights gained by hermeneutics of Dasein, into how our brain functions to let us know what's happening & on the other hand, scientific discoveries obtained through anatomy, EEG, fMRI, TMS, electrode implants, etc, of brain structures & functions employed in perception of the momentary scene. A nexus between science and philosophy is provided in Heidegger's definitive treatment of the Logos, here interpreted as a structural version of Platonic forms (Burchard, 2014). This allows for neurolinguistic brain functions to serve as meta-context for Heidegger's being-in-the-world. The logical functions of Dasein's anatomical brain are performed by the logos machine, formerly the human soul, using top-down processing based on a global context, the noumenal cosmos which humans maintain internally. Heidegger's 1942/43 winter semester lectures Parmenides extend in unbroken fashion his 1935 work, proving that he never abandoned, as is widely claimed, his metaphysical avenue of thought. (shrink)

Review of Searl's book Seeing Things as They are.

We resist Schilbach et al.’s characterization of the “social perception” approach to social cognition as a “spectator theory” of other minds. We show how the social perception view acknowledges the crucial role interaction plays in enabling social understanding. We also highlight a dilemma Schilbach et al. face in attempting to distinguish their second person approach from the social perception view.

The theory-ladenness of perception argument is not an argument at all. It is two clusters of arguments. The first cluster is empirical. These arguments typically begin with a discussion of one or more of the following psychological phenomena: (a) the conceptual penetrability of the visual system, (b) voluntary perceptual reversal of ambiguous figures, (c) adaptation to distorting lenses, or (d) expectation effects. From this evidence, proponents of theory-ladenness typically conclude that perception is in some sense "laden" with theory. (...) The second cluster attempts to extract deep epistemological lessons from this putative fact. Some philosophers conclude that science is not (in any traditional sense) a rational activity, while others conclude that we must radically reconceptualize what scientific rationality involves. Once we understand the structure of these arguments, much conventional wisdom about the significance of the psychological data turns out to be false. (shrink)

I develop and defend a sense-datum theory of perception. My theory follows the spirit of classic sense-datum theories: I argue that what it is to have a perceptual experience is to be acquainted with some sense-data, where sense-data are private particulars that have all the properties they appear to have, that are common to both perception and hallucination, that constitute the phenomenal characters of perceptual experiences, and that are analogous to pictures inside one’s head. But my theory (...) also diverges from conventional sense-datum theories in some key respects: on my view, (1) sense-data are first-person presentations of neural states, (2) the sensational qualities of sense-data differ in kind from the sensible qualities of external objects, and (3) sense-data are the vehicles in virtue of which we perceive, rather than the objects that we perceive. I argue that this package of claims is appropriately labeled ‘sense-datum theory’, and that the resultant view ought to be a live contender in contemporary philosophy of perception. (shrink)

The direct social perception thesis claims that we can directly perceive some mental states of other people. The direct perception of mental states has been formulated phenomenologically and psychologically, and typically restricted to the mental state types of intentions and emotions. I will compare DSP to another account of mindreading: dual process accounts that posit a fast, automatic “Type 1” form of mindreading and a slow, effortful “Type 2” form. I will here analyze whether dual process accounts’ Type (...) 1 mindreading serves as a rival to DSP or whether some Type 1 mindreading can be perceptual. I will focus on Apperly and Butterfill’s dual process account of mindreading epistemic states such as perception, knowledge, and belief. This account posits a minimal form of Type 1 mindreading of belief-like states called registrations. I will argue that general dual process theories fit well with a modular view of perception that is considered a kind of Type 1 process. I will show that this modular view of perception challenges and has significant advantages over DSP’s phenomenological and psychological theses. Finally, I will argue that if such a modular view of perception is accepted, there is significant reason for thinking Type 1 mindreading of belief-like states is perceptual in nature. This would mean extending the scope of DSP to at least one type of epistemic state. (shrink)

Maria Gołaszewska (1926–2015) was a Polish philosopher associated throughout her life with Poland’s oldest academic institution, the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. She was a student of the phenomenologist Roman Ingarden, himself a student of Edmund Husserl. During the post-war and communist years in Poland, Gołaszewska conducted research focusing on issues related to art and aesthetics. She created her own conception of empirically and anthropologically oriented aesthetics, which I believe is a prime example of a theory that accounts for the perspective (...) of gender, and which in this sense should be acknowledged as having anticipated the main postulates of contemporary feminist philosophy. In the article I present Gołaszewska’s philosophy as a cognitively valuable response to the search of feminist aesthetics for a suitable description of women’s experiences related to art and aesthetic perception. In accordance with this aim, I discuss Gołaszewska’s theory of the aesthetic situation, a framework within which she proposed solutions similar to feminist standpoint theories. These theories were developed chiefly on the basis of the feminist philosophy and feminist epistemology (Elizabeth Anderson, Donna Haraway, Sandra Harding, Elizabeth Potter). In recent years they have also found creative applications in feminist aesthetics (Anne Eaton). (shrink)