The Structure of Perceptual Experience

James Stazicker

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781119061083
• eBook ISBN: 9781119061106
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

This innovative new collection features six original essays exploring the spatial, temporal, and other structures that shape conscious perception.

• Includes cutting-edge research on an increasingly influential topic in the philosophy of the mind
• Explores structural differences between the senses and between different theories of perceptual experience
• Offers innovative new arguments on the philosophy of perception written by leading scholars in the field

1
IS THE SENSE-DATA THEORY A REPRESENTATIONALIST THEORY?

Fiona Macpherson

Abstract

Is the sense-data theory, otherwise known as indirect realism, a form of representationalism? This question has been under-explored in the extant literature, and to the extent that there is discussion, contemporary authors disagree. There are many different variants of representationalism, and differences between these variants that some people have taken to be inconsequential turn out to be key factors in whether the sense-data theory is a form of representationalism. Chief among these are whether a representationalist takes the phenomenal character of an experience to be explicable in virtue of the properties of an experience that represent something or explicable in virtue of that which gets represented. Another is whether representationalists hold a non-reductionist, or naturalistically or non-naturalistically reductionist variant of representationalism. In addition, subtle differences in what one takes phenomenal character to be on the sense-data theory – either awareness of sense-data or the sense-data themselves – together with one's account of representation, are crucial factors in determining whether sense-data theory is compatible with representationalism. This paper explores these relationships and makes manifest the complexities of the metaphysics of two central theories of perception.¹

1. Introduction

Is the sense-data theory of perception – otherwise known as indirect realism – a representationalist theory of perception? This question has not received much attention in the literature, despite two facts. First, representationalism and sense-data theory are two major theories in the philosophy of perception and discussions of them are extensive. Second, those philosophers that have discussed this question have provided different answers to it.

In this paper I seek to answer the question and, in doing so, explain why people have given different answers. Unsurprisingly, the answer turns out to depend on which version of representa-tionalism and which version of indirect realism one considers. However, there are more versions of each than one might have expected, and whether indirect realism is a representationalist theory turns on different factors in different cases.

I will proceed, in section two, by explaining the theory of perception and its account of perceptual experience known as ‘representationalism’. There are many different varieties of rep-resentationalism, and consensus does not exist on which theories the term should cover. In section three, I will explicate the indirect theory of perception and its account of perceptual experience, and outline the varieties of this theory. In section four, I will consider which varieties of indirect realism are compatible with minimal representationalism. In section five, I consider which varieties of indirect realism are compatible with weak, strong, and reductive forms of representationalism. In so doing, I shed light on the significance of the different varieties of each of these views, and bring to light some important considerations about the nature of representation.

2. Representationalism

Representationalism is a theory that says something about representation and something about phenomenal character. I begin this section with short standard elucidations of these terms. Further elaboration of them then occurs throughout this essay. I then consider the different forms of representationalism.

The term ‘phenomenal character’ refers to ‘what it is like’ for subjects to have certain mental states.² Think of your favourite perceptual experience – a visual experience of the sky at twilight when the sky is midnight blue, perhaps. There is something that it is like to see that shade of blue, and what it is like is crucial to your having that experience. Of course when you see an expanse of blue there are typically all sorts of other conscious states that you are in at the same time. You might auditorily experience the sound of voices and clinking glasses, you might be aware of the position of your body lying back on the grass, you might think about what you are going to eat for dinner, and feel tired, and so on. In thinking about what it is like to see something blue you are supposed to abstract away from all the other experiences and conscious states that you are having and consider only that part of your conscious mental life that corresponds to visually experiencing the colour of the sky.³ If there was nothing that it was like to experience the colour of the sky, then you wouldn't be having that experience at all. If there was something different that it was like, then you would be having a different kind of experience – perhaps you would be having a visual experience of a light blue sky, or the visual experience that you are having right now as you read this page. Or, indeed, you might not be having a perceptual experience at all but some other state with phenomenal character, for example, a sensation such as a pain state. Mental states with phenomenal character include perceptual experiences, such as those involved in seeing red squares, hearing music, or tasting whisky; bodily sensations such as itches, tickles, and pains; and emotions or moods, such as feelings of fear, jealousy, and depression. Memories and imaginings of such states often have phenomenal character too. It is a contested issue whether judgments, thoughts, or occurrent beliefs ever have phenomenal character or whether such states are simply accompanied by other states that do – typically imagery states.⁴

Note that ‘phenomenal character’ is taken to be a philosophically neutral term that leaves open the ontological and epistemo-logical nature of states with phenomenal character. Thus, for example, holding that there is phenomenal character does not commit one to a dualist, physicalist or functionalist account of the mind, nor does it commit one to thinking that we have or lack infallible or indubitable knowledge of elements our own mind. In this respect, it is unlike the term ‘qualia’, which is often taken to indicate commitments to a dualist perspective and special knowledge of phenomenal states.

Representational states are states that are about, or are directed towards, something. The paradigm representational states are beliefs and judgments. Your judgment that Scotland is the best country in the world is about Scotland and how good it is. Think of your visual experience of the black letters on this white background (the paper or the screen). The experience, one might think, seems to be about the letters, the background, and their respective colours. In having the experience, your mind is directed towards these things. Elucidated thus, representation might seem a rather straightforward concept. In fact, there are a host of complexities lurking behind the simple description that I have just given. Spelling out what it is for a state to be representational is a subject of much debate, as will become clear later in this essay.

Representationalism is perhaps the most popular theory of the nature of experience in contemporary analytic philosophy. It comes in three different strengths: minimal, weak and strong. Cross-cutting those distinctions, representationalism can also come in what I will call a ‘feature of experience’ and a ‘representational content’ variety. It can also come in a reductive and a non-reductive variety. I will begin by explicating the distinction between minimal, weak and strong varieties.

According to the most minimal form of representationalism, experiences are, at least sometimes, representational states. More particularly, the claim is that the phenomenal character of experience is, at least sometimes, representational. A stronger claim is that that all phenomenal character is representational. I will call a position that affirms either of these two claims, but which does not go on to make the further claims of weak and strong representationalism that I outline below, ‘minimal representationalism’.

Representationalists often make stronger claims than that demanded by minimal representationalism. One such claim is that phenomenal character is always representational and that there can be no difference in the phenomenal character of experience without a difference in the representational content of experience. The second part of this claim is the claim that the phenomenal supervenes on the representational.⁵ Consider your experience of the midnight blue sky. It has a particular phenomenal character and, as I said previously, this experience plausibly represents midnight blue. Suppose that it does. The supervenience claim guarantees that any experience that has a different phenomenal character will not represent midnight blue but something else instead. Following Tye (2009) I will call a representationalist theory that endorses these claims, but not the still stronger claims that I am about to outline, ‘weak representationalism’.

‘Strong representationalism’ is the view that not only does phenomenal character supervene on representational content, but representational content supervenes on phenomenal character. Again, consider your experience of the midnight blue sky and suppose that it represents midnight blue. What is being claimed is that all experiences that represent midnight blue will have that phenomenal character and all experiences with that phenomenal character will represent midnight blue. I will call this claim the ‘mutual supervenience of the phenomenal and the representational’. The mutual supervenience of the phenomenal and the representational has great prima facie plausibility. Experiences with the typical phenomenal character had while looking at midnight blue and experiences with the typical phenomenal character had while look...

Table of contents

• COVER
• SERIES
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT
• NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1 IS THE SENSE-DATA THEORY A REPRESENTATIONALIST THEORY?
• 2 NAIVE REALIST PERSPECTIVES ON SEEING BLURRILY
• 3 PERCEPTUAL GUIDANCE
• 4 THE PERCEPTION OF ACTIVITY
• 5 AUDITORY APPEARANCES
• 6 SPACE, TIME AND MOLYNEUX'S QUESTION
• INDEX
• EULA