Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-hf2s2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T23:08:38.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual Reference and Iconic Content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Santiago Echeverri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence from cognitive science supports the claim that humans and other animals see the world as divided into objects. Although this claim is widely accepted, it remains unclear whether the mechanisms of visual reference have representational content or are directly instantiated in the functional architecture. I put forward a version of the former approach that construes object files as icons for objects. This view is consistent with the evidence that motivates the architectural account, can respond to the key arguments against representational accounts, and has explanatory advantages. I draw general lessons for the philosophy of perception and the naturalization of intentionality.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 761 - 781
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I presented an earlier version of this article at the 43rd Annual Philosophy of Science Conference in Dubrovnik (Croatia). I am grateful to the audience for their comments, especially to Mohan Matthen. I am also indebted to three anonymous referees for their constructive and challenging comments on earlier drafts of this article. This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (research grant 100012-150265/1).

References

Burge, Tyler. 2009. “Five Theses on De Re States and Attitudes.” In The Philosophy of David Kaplan, ed. Almog, Joseph and Leonardi, Paolo, 246–324. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, Paolo 2010. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Campbell, John. 2009. “Consciousness and Reference.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind, ed. McLaughlin, Brian P., Beckermann, Ansgar, and Walter, Sven, 648–62. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Brian P., Beckermann, Ansgar, and Walter, Sven 2012. “Perceiving the Intended Model.” In Perception, Realism, and the Problem of Reference, ed. Raftopoulos, Athanassios and Machamer, Peter, 96–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 2009. The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, Susan, and Xu, Fei. 2001. “Infants’ Knowledge of Objects: Beyond Object Files and Object Tracking.” Cognition 80:179–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickie, Imogen. 2010. “We Are Acquainted with Ordinary Things.” In New Essays on Singular Thought, ed. Jeshion, Robin, 213–45. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Echeverri, Santiago. 2016a. “Illusions of Optimal Motion, Relationism, and Perceptual Content.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, forthcoming. doi:10.1111/papq.12159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverri, Santiago 2016b. “Object Files, Properties, and Perceptual Content.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7:283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 2008. LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Donald D. 1998. Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Glyn, and Riddoch, Jane. 2014. A Case Study in Visual Agnosia Revisited: To See but Not to See. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Treisman, Anne, and Gibbs, B.. 1992. “The Reviewing of Object Files: Object-Specific Integration of Information.” Cognitive Psychology 24:175–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, Alan M., Xu, Fei, Tremoulet, P. D., and Scholl, Brian J.. 1998. “Indexing and the Object Concept: Developing ‘What’ and ‘Where’ Systems.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (1): 10–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthen, Mohan. 2005. Seeing, Doing, and Knowing: A Philosophical Theory of Sense Perception. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthen, Mohan 2014. “Image Content.” In Does Perception Have Content? ed. Brogaard, Berit, 265–90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 2000. On Clear and Confused Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccinini, Gualtiero. 2015. “Computation in Physical Systems.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Eward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/computation-physicalsystems/.Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J. 2012. The Conscious Brain: How Attention Engenders Experience. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 1984. Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2001. “Visual Indexes, Preconceptual Objects, and Situated Vision.” Cognition 80 (1/2): 127–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2003. Seeing and Visualizing: It’s Not What You Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2004. “Some Puzzling Findings in Multiple Object Tracking (MOT): Tracking without Keeping Track of Object Identities.” Visual Cognition 11 (7): 801–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2007. Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2012. Mental Files. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rensnik, Ronald A. 2000. “The Dynamic Representation of Scenes.” Visual Cognition 7 (1–3): 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, Brian J. 2007. “Object Persistence in Philosophy and Psychology.” Mind and Language 22 (5): 563–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholl, Brian J., and Pylyshyn, Zenon W.. 1999. “Tracking Multiple Items through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood.” Cognitive Psychology 38:259–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sears, Christopher R., and Pylyshyn, Zenon W.. 2000. “Multiple Object Tracking and Attentional Processes.” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 54 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth S. 1988. “Where Perceiving Ends and Thinking Begins: The Apprehension of Objects in Infancy.” In Perceptual Development in Infancy: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol. 20, ed. Albert Yonas, 197–234. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth S. 1994. “Initial Knowledge: Six Suggestions.” Cognition 50:431–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremoulet, P. D., Leslie, Alan M., and Hall, D. Geoffrey. 2000. “Infant Individuation and Identification of Objects.” Cognitive Development 15 (4): 499–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar