Phenomenology and the Senses

Philosophical Issues, 1996

We can perceive shapes visually and tactilely, and the information we gain about shapes through both sensory modalities is integrated smoothly into and functions in the same way in our behavior independently of whether we gain it by sight or touch. There seems to be no reason in principle we couldn't perceive shapes through other sensory modalities as well, although as a matter of fact we do not. While we can identify shapes through other sensory modalities-e.g., I may know by smell (the scent of mango) that the object causing my sensory experience is round-this is not perceiving an object as shaped, but rather inferring from the character of one's sensory experience and collateral information that an object of a certain shape caused it. That it is possible to perceive shape by other modalities, however, is suggested by the case of bats and aquatic mammals like dolphins which navigate through their environment by a form of sonar. It is plausible that they have some form of auditory representation of space, and so of shape. These facts about shape perception raise important questions about the relation between those features of perceptual experience which are intrinsic to different sensory modalities and the nature of our perceptual representation of shapes, and, more generally, of the space within which we perceive shaped objects to be located. John Campbell's paper, "Molyneux's Problem" (see above), raises a number of interesting and important questions about the nature of our perception of shape properties, particularly the cross-modal nature of shape perception, and ties them to more general questions about the nature both of perceptual 1 I raise some doubts in section 5 about the importance of there being no phenomenal difference between visual and tactile experience of shape for whether someone can know that he sees the same shape that he feels.

Perceptual Experience, 2006

There seems to be a large gulf between percepts and concepts. In particular, concepts seem to be capable of representing things that percepts cannot. We can conceive of things that would be impossible to perceive. (The converse may also seem true, but I will leave that to one side.) In one respect, this is trivially right. We can conceive of things that we cannot encounter, such as unicorns. We cannot literally perceive unicorns, even if we occasionally ''see'' them in our dreams and hallucinations. To avoid triviality, I want to focus on things that we can actually encounter. We perceive poodles, perfumes, pinpricks, and pounding drums. These are concrete things; they are closely wedded to appearances. But we also encounter things that are abstract. We encounter uncles and instances of injustice. These things have no characteristic looks. Percepts, it is said, cannot represent abstract things. Call this claim the Imperceptability Thesis. I think the Imperceptibility Thesis is false. Perception is not restricted to the concrete. We can perceive abstract entities. This may sound like an obvious claim. We often use perceptual terms widely to say things such as: ''I perceive a lack of agreement'' or ''I see where you are going with that argument.'' But, by most accounts, these uses of perceptual terms are either metaphorical or, at any rate, different from the use of perceptual terms in cases that more directly involve the sense modalities: ''I perceive distant rumbling''; ''I see a red light over there.'' The abstract cases are interpreted as involving the sense modalities, if only indirectly. The presumption is that we must first pick up something with our senses and then judge that there is, say, a lack of agreement. Moreover, the abstract cases are presumed to require a level of mental representation that is not perceptual in format. I want to deny all of this. Perceiving abstracta can be just like perceiving concreta. Those willing to abandon the Imperceptibility Thesis might dig in their heels elsewhere. If there is no semantic gulf between percepts and concepts, there I am deeply indebted to two anonymous referees and, especially, Tamar Gendler. This paper benefited tremendously from their detailed comments and excellent advice.

The Senses: Classical and Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives, 2011

Representationalist theories of sensory experience are often thought to be vulnerable to the existence of apparently non-representational differences between experiences in different sensory modalities. Seeing and hearing seem to differ in their qualia, quite apart from what they represent. The origin of this idea is perhaps Grice’s argument, in “Some Remarks on the Senses,” that the senses are distinguished by “introspectible character.” In this chapter I take the Representationalist side by putting forward an account of sense modalities which is consistent with that view and yet pays due regard to the intuition behind Grice’s argument. Employing J.J. Gibson’s distinction between exploratory and performatory behaviour, I point to a proprioceptive element in perceptual experience, and identify this as crucial in any account of what makes a particular way of perceiving a sense modality.

Purpose and Procedure in Philosophy of Perception

Although there is much disagreement within the philosophy of perception, there is one thing that the majority of philosophers agree on: our philosophical account of perceptual experience should be compatible with physicalism. The aim of this paper is to explore the impact this has had within the philosophy of perception, and to point out some of the problems a physicalist approach must face. Representationalism is the leading account of perception, and was developed precisely to meet the physicalist’s criteria. This chapter supports and expands on an existing argument that representationalism fails in this aim. It then points out a problem with the new view—non-relationalism—which has arisen as a result of the failure of standard representationalism to qualify as a genuinely physicalist view. Non-relationalist accounts have difficulty doing justice to the idea that our perceptual experiences are assessable for accuracy or veridicality.

Representationalist theories of sensory experience are often thought to be vulnerable to the existence of apparently non-representational differences between experiences in different sensory modalities. Seeing and hearing seem to differ in their qualia, quite apart from what they represent. The origin of this idea is perhaps Grice's argument, in "Some Remarks on the Senses," that the senses are distinguished by "introspectible character." In this chapter I take the Representationalist side by putting forward an account of sense modalities which is consistent with that view and yet pays due regard to the intuition behind Grice's argument. Employing J.J. Gibson's distinction between exploratory and performatory behaviour, I point to a proprioceptive element in perceptual experience, and identify this as crucial in any account of what makes a particular way of perceiving a sense modality.

If a sensory brain state plays an unusual functional role, does the phenomenology go with the role or the brain state? If the phenomenology goes with the functional role, that supports functionalism, which is the view that phenomenology just is the role. If it goes with the brain state, that supports physicalism, which is the view that phenomenology is what realizes or implements the role.

Philosophical Quarterly, 2011

Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences, 2020