Sense-datum Theory Research Articles

Perception and illusion: replies to Sethi, Speaks and Cutter

ABSTRACT I reply to comments on my book Perception (Routledge 2021) by Umrao Sethi, Jeff Speaks and Brian Cutter. Sethi objects to my representational view of perception on the ground that that having an experience of a color or shape can enable you to know what that color or shape is like only if it is actually present in the experience. Speaks has a very interesting discussion of my puzzle of the laws of appearance for the representational view. And Cutter asks what I have against 'neural sense datum theory'. In my responses, I try to take the discussion forward. At the end, I develop a new argument against reductive physicalist theories of sensible qualities.

Illusion, delusion, and neural sense data: comments on Adam Pautz’s Perception

ABSTRACT This commentary on Adam Pautz's excellent book, Perception, explores the consequences of “spatial illusionism,” the view that the spatial properties presented in experience aren't instantiated in the extra-mental world. First, I consider whether spatial illusionism entails that our ordinary beliefs about the physical world are mostly false. I then argue that spatial illusionism threatens to undermine two arguments Pautz's defends in Perception: his argument that sense data theory is incompatible with physicalism, and his central argument against the internal physical state view of perception.

The Place of Naïve Realism in Russell’s Changing Accounts of Perception

In this paper I describe the place of naive realism in Russell’s changing accounts of perception. I argue ‎for the following conclusions: (1) The early period, 1898-1910: I am inclined to think that the naïve ‎realism that Russell embraced so enthusiastically early on may not have been intended as a naïve ‎realism about perception, but as a metaphysical or semantical thesis. (2) The Problems of Philosophy ‎‎(1912): Russell abandons naïve realism (if, in fact, he ever held it) and presents a sense-datum version ‎of representative realism. (3) “On Matter” (1912): here we see Russell’s best attempt to defend ‎something very close to the standard doctrine of naïve realism. The objects of perception—the ‎‎“everyday material objects such as caterpillars and Cadillacs”—have, of course, undergone severe ‎reconstruction. But the resulting picture does capture the spirit of the doctrine. (4) The period from ‎‎1914 to 1927: though Russell’s thinking about perception underwent some significant changes during ‎this period—the sense datum theory is replaced by neutral monism—I try to show that the ‎distinction between the matter of physics and the thing of common sense is a constant feature of ‎Russell’s changing views. And I suggest that our perceptual relation the thing of common ‎sense (as logically reconstructed by Russell) can usefully be viewed as a limited sort of naïve realism. ‎‎(5) The period after 1927: the thing of common sense no longer features in Russell’s account of our ‎perceptual access to the world. The things we perceive are percepts, located in our private spaces. The ‎only material objects of which these percepts are parts are our brains. All other material objects are ‎beyond our perceptual reach and are accessible only via inference. This is the end of anything ‎resembling the traditional view of naïve realism in Russell’s account of perception. ‎

JUSTIFICATION OF PERCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE: REPRESENTATIONALISM AND DIRECT REALISM

The paper examines two of the most influential approaches to the problem of the justification of perceptual knowledge: representationalism and direct realism, taken in a version of epistemological disjunctivism. The problem itself can be represented as the need to demonstrate that there is a logical connection between a statement about the perception of a certain fact, p, and a statement about the knowledge of p. The article notes that both approaches face the problem of “the silence of the senses.” This problem was pointed out by Ch.Travis, who tried to show that the content of sensory experience is not propositional; senses themselves do not tell us what fact we are dealing with when perceptually interacting with the world. The first part of the article reconstructs the argument from looks that Travis proposed to criticize representationalism. This part demonstrates that we cannot accept representationalism as an approach in the philosophy of perception that successfully overcomes the shortcomings of sense data theory. The main drawback of this theory was its adherence to the myth of the given—the idea that in perceptual experience we are dealing with non-propositional, non-conceptual “raw” data. The second part of the paper notes that Travis’s argument can also be directed against such a version of direct realism as epistemological disjunctivism, since according to representatives of this theory, the content of veridical perceptual experience, being identical with the perceived state of affairs, is propositional. This part also analyzes the response to Travis from such a representative of this theory as J.McDowell. While McDowell rejects propositionalism, he nevertheless insists that the content of perceptual experience must be regarded as conceptual. It allows us to avoid the myth of the given. In conclusion, criticism of McDowell’s approach from the phenomenological position taken by H.Dreyfus is discussed, and it is noted that McDowell’s conceptualism is quite compatible with both phenomenology and enactivism. The enactivist understanding of perception that we find in McDowell leads us to accept the enactivist account of perceptual knowledge, where the foundation of knowledge is action, i.e. something epistemically groundless.

Naïve realism, sensory colors, and the argument from phenomenological constancies

ABSTRACT The sensory colors that figure in visual perceptual experience are either properties of the object of consciousness (naïve realism, sense-data theory), or properties of the subject of consciousness (adverbialism) (Section 1). I consider an argument suggested by the work of A. D. Smith that the existence of certain kinds of perceptual constancies shows that adverbialism is correct, for only adverbialism can account for such constancies (Section 3). I respond on behalf of the naïve realist that naïve realism is compatible with the existence of such constancies, so long as naïve realism adopts the view that sensory colors are relational properties of physical objects, not intrinsic properties (Section 4). In other words, the naïve realist should adopt the theory of appearing (Section 5).

Проблема восприятия: дизъюнктивизм vs репрезента­ционализм

The article explores discussions surrounding the problem of perception, the grounds of which can be explicated through the antinomy between two components: the argument from the transparency of experience and the argument from hallucination. In general, the argument from transparency is used to justify direct realism, and the argument from hal­lucination is usually associated with attempts to refute direct realism and establish the sense-data theory. The latter has a rich history in analytical philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century, but ultimately philosophers came to the conclusion that it had seri­ous theoretical flaws. In the second half of the twentieth century, the position of represen­tationalism became orthodox, which not only retained some of the realistic intuitions of direct realists, but blocked the argument from hallucination. The article demonstrates that if we accept the common kind assumption, then representationalism “loses” material ob­jects as constituents of perception, as in the case of the theory of sense-data. In recent decades, direct realism in the form of disjunctivism has returned to the battlefield in the philosophy of perception. Within its framework, the common kind assumption is blocked, which makes it possible to protect the ontology of direct realism without facing the disad­vantages of the representationalist option. Nevertheless, the author proposes his own ap­proach to solving the problem of perception, revealing a problematic presupposition com­mon to both components of the antinomy. It turns out to be a methodological principle that connects introspective theses with metaphysical ones, which is faced with an ana­logue of the problem of the guillotine of D. Hume. The author concludes that although the problem of perception loses its foundation, this does not devalue the very discussions about the conceptions of perception. Rather, it indicates the need for reflection on the very methodology of modern philosophy of perception.

Did Putnam Really Abandon Internal Realism in the 1990s?

This paper aims to challenge the idea claimed by Putnam in his Dewey Lectures that internal realism presupposed sense data theory so that it would have been unable to account for the fundamental intuition of common sense realism that perception gives us cognitive access to reality. Rather, I argue that Putnam’s writings from the period of internal realism indicate that it (internal realism) already presupposed a form of direct realism of the kind he puts forth in the Dewey lectures. I support my thesis with a demonstration of the implication of direct realism in the refutation of the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis that occurs in the first chapter of Reason, Truth and History, as well as with various passages from the philosopher’s writings of the time when he defended internal realism. I also argue, contrary to what the philosopher seems to assert in his Dewey Lectures, that his model-theoretic argument against metaphysical realism does not involve sense data theory. After noting the very strong resemblance between the theses of his common sense realism of the 1990s and those of his internal realism of the 1980s, I hypothesize that Putnam pretended to renounce internal realism in order to allow himself to rephrase his original position so as to avoid being misinterpreted as a form of idealism or fact constructivism, as was the case with his initial statement.

Externalists Should Be Sense-Datum Theorists

AbstractOne increasingly popular view in the philosophy of perception is externalism about sensible qualities, according to which sensible qualities such as colors, smells, tastes, and textures are features, not of our minds, but of mind-independent, external objects in the world. The primary motivation for this view is that perceptual experience seems to be transparent—that is, when we attend to sensible qualities, it seems like what we are attending to are features of external objects, not our own minds. Most (if not all) externalists are either naïve realists or externalist representationalists. However, in this article, I argue that those who are moved by the primary motivation for externalism should instead be sense-datum theorists, for externalists’ primary motivation supports the sense-datum theory, not their actually favored views. I argue that externalists should focus on different motivations, get new ones, or become sense-datum theorists.

Considerações sobre a natureza da experiência perceptiva

On this paper I will present and I will discuss the sense data theory, the intentionalism and the disjunctivism on their pure versions, that is, according to which the nature of perceptual experiences is fundamentally a matter of sense data, intentional content and of the perceptual relation, respectively. For that, I will deal with some of the main arguments used to support these theories and of some criticism against them. Considering the problems that challenge them, it seems that none of them offer a satisfactory account to the nature of perceptual experiences.

SEMANTIC DIRECT REALISM

AbstractThe most common form of direct realism is Phenomenological Direct Realism (PDR). PDR is the theory that direct realism consists in unmediated awareness of the external object in the form of unmediated awareness of its relevant properties. I contrast this with Semantic Direct Realism (SDR), the theory that perceptual experience puts you in direct cognitive contact with external objects but does so without the unmediated awareness of the objects’ intrinsic properties invoked by PDR. PDR is what most understand by direct realism. My argument is that, under pressure from the arguments from illusion and hallucination, defenders of intentionalist theories, and even of relational theories, in fact retreat to SDR. I also argue briefly that the sense-datum theory is compatible with SDR and so nothing is gained by adopting either of the more fashionable theories.

Introspection and Primacy of Perception: A Critical Reflection on Naïve Realism

A fundamental issue in philosophy of perception is to understand the nature of experience and the relation of the experience with objects or states of affairs that is experienced. A prominent philosophical issue here is posed by the possibility of hallucinatory experiences, which are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception for the experiencer. The philosophical views in this matter can be grouped into three major positions on the basis of the nature of the subjective experience and relation of the subjective experience with the object. These are the sense-data theories—which consider that the objects of perception are mental entities; the representative theories—according to which perception is a representation of the objects in the external world; and the naive realist theories—which proclaim that the external objects are constitutive of the very perceptual experience and not a representation of it. Naive realism claims it is the defence of common-sense notion regarding experience i.e. how experience seems to the experiencer upon introspective reflection on it. This position has a growing number of proponents in philosophy especially in the last two decades. But it also entails radical departure of established philosophical views regarding the nature of experience, the phenomenal character of experience, and the experiencer–object relation. In this paper, we critically examine naive realism from two crucial aspects pertaining to it—the question of introspection being basis of naive realist thesis, and the notion of primacy of perception over non-veridical forms of experiences. We find that there are significant problems which weaken the naive realist thesis.

On representationalism, common-factorism, and whether consciousness is here and now

A strong form of representationalism says that every conscious property of every mental state can be identified with some part of the state’s representational properties. A weaker representationalism says that some conscious property of some mental state can be identified with some part of the state’s representational properties. David Papineau has recently argued that all such theories are incorrect since (a) they construe consciousness as consisting (partly or wholly) in “relations to propositions or other abstract objects outside space and time”, whereas (b) consciousness is “concrete” and “here and now”. Papineau defends instead a kind of “qualia theory” according to which all conscious properties are intrinsic non-relational properties of subjects. He argues that this theory bypasses the difficulties he identifies for representationalism. Similar worries about representationalism, and similar ideas to the effect that some qualia theory, adverbial theory, or sense-datum theory fares better with respect to these worries are relatively wide-spread. I argue that Papineau’s theory does not bypass the difficulties he identifies for representationalism. In fact, Papineau’s theory arguably has no advantage at all over representationalism with regard to these issues. The features that concern Papineau about representationalist views do not derive—or do not derive solely—from the representationalism of these views. They (also) derive from a common-factorism of these views. And this common-factorism is embraced by Papineau as well as by most theories of consciousness and perception.

The Missing Argument in Sellars’s Case against Classical Sense Datum Theory in “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind”

The Missing Argument in Sellars’s Case against Classical Sense Datum Theory in “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind”

Direct perception and the predictive mind

Predictive approaches to the mind claim that perception, cognition, and action can be understood in terms of a single framework: a hierarchy of Bayesian models employing the computational strategy of predictive coding. Proponents of this view disagree, however, over the extent to which perception is direct on the predictive approach. I argue that we can resolve these disagreements by identifying three distinct notions of perceptual directness: psychological, metaphysical, and epistemological. I propose that perception is plausibly construed as psychologically indirect on the predictive approach, in the sense of being constructivist or inferential. It would be wrong to conclude from this, however, that perception is therefore indirect in a metaphysical or epistemological sense on the predictive approach. In the metaphysical case, claims about the inferential properties of constructivist perceptual mechanisms are consistent with both direct and indirect solutions to the metaphysical problem of perception (e.g. naive realism, representationalism, sense datum theory). In the epistemological case, claims about the inferential properties of constructivist perceptual mechanisms are consistent with both direct and indirect approaches to the justification of perceptual belief. In this paper, I demonstrate how proponents of the predictive approach have conflated these distinct notions of perceptual directness and indirectness, and I propose alternative strategies for developing the philosophical consequences of the approach.

Alston on the Epistemic Advantages of the Theory of Appearing

William Alston claimed that epistemic considerations are relevant to theorizing about the metaphysics of perceptual experience. There must be something about the intrinsic nature of a perceptual experience that explains why it is that it justifies one in believing what it does, rather than other propositions. A metaphysical theory of experience that provides the resources for such an explanation is to be preferred over ones that do not. Alston argued that the theory of appearing gains a leg up on its rivals, particularly sense-datum theory and adverbialism, precisely on this score. This paper examines these claims, along with the further question of whether the theory of appearing fares better epistemologically than the currently popular theory of intentionalism about perceptual experience. I conclude that while Alston is correct that the theory of appearing fares better than its traditional rivals (the sense datum theory and adverbialism), it does not clearly fare better than intentionalism. I further argue that Alston ignores a number of complexities in his account of how perceptual experience, construed as states of objects appearing certain ways to subjects, justifies perceptual beliefs.

Datos sensoriales, introspección y la realidad de las apariencias

En la actualidad la teoría de los datos sensoriales es frecuentemente descartada por los filósofos de la percepción como algo extravagante sin otorgar calificaciones adicionales o argumentos detallados, pese a su importancia histórica y a la influencia que aún tiene. En este artículo pretendo reevaluar adecuadamente sus compromisos básicos y consecuencias a la luz de nuevos desarrollos en las filosofías de la mente y la percepción. Examinaré con detalle la naturaleza de los datos sensoriales y señalaré que esta teoría no solo conlleva las inaceptables consecuencias ontológicas y epistemológicas que se identifican con frecuencia, sino también que esta no puede ser establecida o refutada conclusivamente solo en base a nuestra evidencia introspectiva como muchos autores han sugerido.

Did Aristotle assume a sense-data theory?"

Did Aristotle assume a sense-data theory?"

Husserl, the Absolute Flow, and Temporal Experience

Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological analysis of internal time consciousness has a reputation for being complex, occasionally to the point of approaching impenetrability. The latter applies in particular to his remarks about what he calls the ‘absolute time-constituting flow’,1 some of which Husserl himself describes as ‘‘shocking (when not initially even absurd)’’ (Husserl, 1991, p. 84). [...]

The “Myth of the Given”: The Hegelian Meditations of Wilfrid Sellars

The “Myth of the Given”: The Hegelian Meditations of Wilfrid Sellars

Die Theorie des Erscheinens

Abstract. According to the theory of appearing, veridical perception consists in an irreducible relation of appearing between a perceiving subject and a physical object. The paper sketches the development of the theory and its relation to competing views (sense data theory, adverbialism, representationalism). The most worked-out version of the theory, due to William Alston, is found lacking on several counts. First, Alston’s account of the phenomenal character of perception succeeds only if we disregard the possibility of illusion. Second, the account implies, implausibly, that to be deceived by hallucination is to commit an introspective error concerning the phenomenal character of one’s own experience. Another unintuitive implication of the theory is that veridical perception involves not one but two objects appearing to the subject: the physical object perceived and a further, special object required to account for the possibility of hallucinatory experience. Finally, relative to its competitors, the theory of appearing is not in a privileged position to explain how perception can be a source of justification for empirical judgements.