Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T11:27:32.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Action-Oriented Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

Pete Mandik
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Coordinator, Cognitive Science Lab, William Paterson University
Andrew Brook
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Kathleen Akins
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Often, sensory input underdetermines perception. One such example is the perception of illusory contours. In illusory contour perception, the content of the percept includes the presence of a contour that is absent from the informational content of the sensation. (By “sensation” I mean merely information-bearing events at the transducer level. I intend no further commitment, such as the identification of sensations with qualia.) I call instances of perception underdetermined by sensation “underdetermined perception.”

The perception of illusory contours is just one kind of underdetermined perception (see Figure 8.1). The focus of this chapter is another kind of underdetermined perception: what I shall call “active perception.” Active perception occurs in cases in which the percept, while underdetermined by sensation, is determined by a combination of sensation and action. The phenomenon of active perception has been used by several to argue against the positing of representations in explanations of sensory experience, either by arguing that no representations need be posited or that far fewer than previously thought need be posited. Such views include, but are not limited to, those of J. Gibson (1966, 1986), P. S. Churchland et al. (1994), T. Jarvilehto (1998), and J. O'Regan and A. Noë (2001). In this chapter, I argue for the contrary position that active perception is actually best accounted for by a representational theory of perception. Along the way, this will require a relatively novel conception of what to count as representations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognition and the Brain
The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement
, pp. 284 - 306
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. (1964). Sense and Sensibilia. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Bach-y-Rita, P. (1972). Brain Mechanisms in Sensory Substitution. New York and London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Baum, D. (2002). The Definitive Guide to LEGO MINDSTORMS, Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: ApressGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. S., Ramachandran, V. S., and Sejnowski, T. J. (1994). “A critique of pure vision.” In Koch, C. and Davis, J. L. (eds.), Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 23–60Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being There. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2000a). “A case where access implies qualia?” Analysis 60: 1: 30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2000b). “Phenomenal immediacy and the doors of sensation.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 7 (4): 21–24Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2002). “Visual experience and motor action: Are the bonds too tight?” Philosophical Review 110: 495–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colby, C. (1999). “Parietal cortex constructs action-oriented spatial representations.” In Burgess, N., Jeffery, K. J., and O'Keefe, J. (eds.), The Hippocampal and Parietal Foundations of Spatial Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–126Google Scholar
Cotterill, R. (1998). Enchanted Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. (1985). “Molyneux's question.” In Evans, Gareth, The Collected Papers of Gareth Evans. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Faillenot, I., Toni, I., Decety, J., Gregoire, M. C., and Jeannerod, M. (1997). “Visual pathways for object-oriented action and object identification: Functional anatomy with PET.” Cerebral Cortex 7: 77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., Craighero, Laila, Fadiga, Luciano, and Fogassi, Leonardo (1999). “Perception through action.” Psyche 5 (21): http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v5/psyche-5-21-gallese.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. (1991). “Exaptation: A crucial tool for evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues 47: 43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. (1961). “The causal theory of perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, sup. vol. 35: 121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grush, R. (1998). “Skill and spatial content.” Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6: http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1998/grusharticle98.htmlGoogle Scholar
Grush, Rick (2001). “Self, world and space: On the meaning and mechanisms of egocentric and allocentric spatial representation.” Brain and Mind 1 (1): 59–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneton, S., Gapenne, O., Genouel, C., Lenay, C., and Marque, C. (1999). “Dynamics of shape recognition through a minimal visuo-tactile sensory substitution interface.” Third International Conference on Cognitive and Neural Systems, pp. 26–29Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H. (1867). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. In Karsten, G. (ed.), Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Physik, vol. 9. Leipzig: VossGoogle Scholar
Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. (1962). “Receptive fields, binocular interaction, and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex.” Journal of Physiology 195: 215–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, S. (1998). Consciousness in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Hyman, J. (1992). “The causal theory of perception.” Philosophical Quarterly 42 (168): 277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvilehto, T. (1998). “Efferent influences on receptors in knowledge formation.” Psycoloquy 9 (41): http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.41Google Scholar
Jeannerod, M. (1999). “A dichotomous visual brain?” Psyche 5 (25): http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v5/psyche-5-25-jeannerod.htmlGoogle Scholar
Keeley, B. (2002). “Making sense of the senses: Individuating modalities in humans and other animals.” Journal of Philosophy 99: 5–28Google Scholar
Koshland, D. (1977). “A response regulator model in a simple sensory system. Science 196: 1055–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshland, D. (1980). “Bacterial chemotaxis in relation to neurobiology.” In Cowan, W. C. et al. (eds.), Annual Review of Neurosciences 3. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, pp. 43–75Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S., Ganis, G., and Thompson, W. (2001). “Neural foundations of imagery.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2: 635–642CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsson, J., Amunts, K., Gulyas, B., Malikovic, A., Zilles, K., and Roland, P. (1999). “Neuronal correlates of real and illusory contour perception: Functional anatomy with PET.” Eur J Neurosci. 11 (11): 4024–4036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenay, C., Cannu, S., and Villon, P. (1997). “Technology and perception: The contribution of sensory substitution systems.” In Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology. Aizu, Japan, and Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE, pp. 44–53
Livingstone, M., and Hubel, D. (1988). “Segregation of form, color, movement and depth: Anatomy, physiology and perception.” Science 240 (4853): 740–749CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mach, E. (1885). Die Analyse der Empfindungen. Jena: FischerGoogle Scholar
Mandik, P. (1999). “Qualia, space, and control.” Philosophical Psychology 12 (1): 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandik, P. (2001). “Mental representation and the subjectivity of consciousness.” Philosophical Psychology 14 (2): 179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandik, P. (2002). “Synthetic neuroethology.” In Bynum, T. W. and Moor, J. H. (eds.), CyberPhilosophy: The Intersection of Philosophy and Computing. New York: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 8–25Google Scholar
Mandik, P. (2003). “Varieties of representation in evolved and embodied neural networks.” Biology and Philosophy 18 (1): 95–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. (1996). “Pushmi-pullyu representations.” In May, L., Friedman, M., and Clark, A. (eds.), Minds and Morals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 145–161Google Scholar
Milner, D., and Goodale, M. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Oakes, R. (1978). “How to rescue the traditional causal theory of perception.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 38 (3): 370–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Craven, K., and Kanwisher, N. (2000). “Mental imagery of faces and places activates corresponding stimulus-specific brain regions.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: 1013–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Regan, J., and Noë, A. (2001). “A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5): 939–1011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perrett, D., Mistlin, A., and Chitty, A. (1989). “Visual neurons responsive to faces.” Trends in Neurosciences 10: 358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterhans, E., and der Heydt, R. (1991). “Subjective contours – bridging the gap between psychophysics and physiology.” Trends in Neurosciences 14: 112–119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, J. (2000). “The ins and outs of consciousness.” Brain and Mind 1 (2): 245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J. (2001). “Functionalism, dualism, and the neural correlates of consciousness.” In Bechtel, W., Mandik, P., Mundale, J., and Stufflebeam, R. (eds.), Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, D. (1997). “A theory of consciousness.” In Ned Block, Flanagan, O., and Guzeldere, G. (eds.), The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J., Emerson, R., Gerstein, G., Kallos, T., Neufield, G., Nichols, C., and Rosenquist, A. (1976). “Paralysis of the awake human: Visual perceptions.” Vision Research 16: 93–98CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullins, J. (2002). “Building simple mechanical minds: Using LEGO® robots for research and teaching in philosophy.” In Bynum, T. W. and Moor, J. H. (eds.), CyberPhilosophy: The Intersection of Philosophy and Computing. New York: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 104–116Google Scholar
Tye, M. (1995). Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
der Heydt, R., Peterhans, E., and Baumgartner, G. (1984). “Illusory contours and cortical neuron responses.” Science 224: 1260–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Action-Oriented Representation
    • By Pete Mandik, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Coordinator, Cognitive Science Lab, William Paterson University
  • Edited by Andrew Brook, Carleton University, Ottawa, Kathleen Akins, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
  • Book: Cognition and the Brain
  • Online publication: 02 February 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610608.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Action-Oriented Representation
    • By Pete Mandik, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Coordinator, Cognitive Science Lab, William Paterson University
  • Edited by Andrew Brook, Carleton University, Ottawa, Kathleen Akins, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
  • Book: Cognition and the Brain
  • Online publication: 02 February 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610608.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Action-Oriented Representation
    • By Pete Mandik, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Coordinator, Cognitive Science Lab, William Paterson University
  • Edited by Andrew Brook, Carleton University, Ottawa, Kathleen Akins, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia
  • Book: Cognition and the Brain
  • Online publication: 02 February 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610608.009
Available formats
×