How should we account for our ability to entertain simple, vision-based demonstrative thoughts ... more How should we account for our ability to entertain simple, vision-based demonstrative thoughts about particular objects (that is, our ability to entertain thoughts about particular objects simply on the basis of seeing them)? In this thesis I propose an account of this ability that accords with the common-sense view that seeing an object puts one in a position to single it out by visually attending to it, and that this provides one with the ability to entertain demonstrative thoughts about it. An account of this type requires that we account for what it is to see a particular object and to visually attend to it without appealing to particular demonstrative abilities. However, it has been argued that a notion of seeing an object, and similarly a notion of attending to an object, which is accounted for in this way is unsuitable for accounting for demonstrative abilities. I argue that there is no real problem: what we need is a notion of experiential content which is concept-dependen...
John McDowell (in Mind and World) and Bill Brewer (in Perception and Reason) argue that the conte... more John McDowell (in Mind and World) and Bill Brewer (in Perception and Reason) argue that the content of our perceptual experience is conceptual in the following sense. It is of the type of content that could be the content of a judgement-that is, a content which results from the actualization of two (or more) conceptual abilities. Specifically, they suggest that the conceptual abilities actualized in experience are demonstrative abilities, and thus the resulting content is of the type we may express by means of sentences of the form 'this is thus'. In this paper I argue that we cannot construe experiential contents in this way. I first outline a construal of the ability to think about a thing being thus which is based on Brewer's discussion of conceptual experiential contents, and which I take to be the best construal available to the conceptualist. I then show that on this construal the demonstrative abilities that account for our experience of properties require intentional focused attention to the relevant properties. The conceptualist is thus committed to holding that we experience only the properties we are intentionally attending to, and I argue that this is implausible. The interest in examining Brewer's conceptualist construal of experiential content and pointing out its shortcoming is not limited merely to an interest in whether there is a workable conceptualist account of experiential content. I suggest that certain aspects of Brewer's construal capture important (and often neglected) aspects of our perceptual experience, and that understanding why the account fails can contribute to our understanding of both experiential content and demonstrative thought.
... Stirling Naomi Eilan, University ofWarwick Christoph Hoerl, University of Warwick Hemdat Lerm... more ... Stirling Naomi Eilan, University ofWarwick Christoph Hoerl, University of Warwick Hemdat Lerman, University of Warwick Andrew N. Meltzoff ... of Warwick Johannes Roessler, University of Warwick Paul Snowdon, University College London Matthew Soteriou, University ofWarwick ...
According to John McDowell and Bill Brewer, our experiences have the type of content which can be... more According to John McDowell and Bill Brewer, our experiences have the type of content which can be the content of judgements - content which is the result of the actualization of specific conceptual abilities. They defend this view by arguing that our experiences must have such content in order for us to be able to think about our environment. In this paper I show that they do not provide a conclusive argument for this view. Focusing on Brewer’s version of the argument, I show that it rests on a questionable assumption - namely, that if a subject can recognize the normative bearing of a mental content upon what she should think and do, then this content must be the result of the actualization of conceptual capacities (and in this sense conceptual). I argue that considerations regarding the roles played by experience and concepts in our mental lives may require us to reject this assumption.
How should we account for our ability to entertain simple, vision-based demonstrative thoughts ... more How should we account for our ability to entertain simple, vision-based demonstrative thoughts about particular objects (that is, our ability to entertain thoughts about particular objects simply on the basis of seeing them)? In this thesis I propose an account of this ability that accords with the common-sense view that seeing an object puts one in a position to single it out by visually attending to it, and that this provides one with the ability to entertain demonstrative thoughts about it. An account of this type requires that we account for what it is to see a particular object and to visually attend to it without appealing to particular demonstrative abilities. However, it has been argued that a notion of seeing an object, and similarly a notion of attending to an object, which is accounted for in this way is unsuitable for accounting for demonstrative abilities. I argue that there is no real problem: what we need is a notion of experiential content which is concept-dependen...
John McDowell (in Mind and World) and Bill Brewer (in Perception and Reason) argue that the conte... more John McDowell (in Mind and World) and Bill Brewer (in Perception and Reason) argue that the content of our perceptual experience is conceptual in the following sense. It is of the type of content that could be the content of a judgement-that is, a content which results from the actualization of two (or more) conceptual abilities. Specifically, they suggest that the conceptual abilities actualized in experience are demonstrative abilities, and thus the resulting content is of the type we may express by means of sentences of the form 'this is thus'. In this paper I argue that we cannot construe experiential contents in this way. I first outline a construal of the ability to think about a thing being thus which is based on Brewer's discussion of conceptual experiential contents, and which I take to be the best construal available to the conceptualist. I then show that on this construal the demonstrative abilities that account for our experience of properties require intentional focused attention to the relevant properties. The conceptualist is thus committed to holding that we experience only the properties we are intentionally attending to, and I argue that this is implausible. The interest in examining Brewer's conceptualist construal of experiential content and pointing out its shortcoming is not limited merely to an interest in whether there is a workable conceptualist account of experiential content. I suggest that certain aspects of Brewer's construal capture important (and often neglected) aspects of our perceptual experience, and that understanding why the account fails can contribute to our understanding of both experiential content and demonstrative thought.
... Stirling Naomi Eilan, University ofWarwick Christoph Hoerl, University of Warwick Hemdat Lerm... more ... Stirling Naomi Eilan, University ofWarwick Christoph Hoerl, University of Warwick Hemdat Lerman, University of Warwick Andrew N. Meltzoff ... of Warwick Johannes Roessler, University of Warwick Paul Snowdon, University College London Matthew Soteriou, University ofWarwick ...
According to John McDowell and Bill Brewer, our experiences have the type of content which can be... more According to John McDowell and Bill Brewer, our experiences have the type of content which can be the content of judgements - content which is the result of the actualization of specific conceptual abilities. They defend this view by arguing that our experiences must have such content in order for us to be able to think about our environment. In this paper I show that they do not provide a conclusive argument for this view. Focusing on Brewer’s version of the argument, I show that it rests on a questionable assumption - namely, that if a subject can recognize the normative bearing of a mental content upon what she should think and do, then this content must be the result of the actualization of conceptual capacities (and in this sense conceptual). I argue that considerations regarding the roles played by experience and concepts in our mental lives may require us to reject this assumption.
Uploads
Papers by Hemdat Lerman