An assembled message: Matthen on the content of perceptual experience

Synthese 202 (2):1-21 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Mohan Matthen holds that visual perceptual content is divided into descriptive and referential elements. Descriptive content is our awareness of sensory features belonging to objects located in the visual field. Matthen conceives of this in terms of an image. The referential element is a demonstrative form of content, by which we pick out those objects as particulars and assert their physical presence. Matthen terms this ‘the feeling of presence’. Together, they make up the ‘assembled message’ that visual states present to the perceiver in perceptual experience. I argue that the two elements cannot play together as Matthen envisages. Beginning with the referential element, I show that the feeling of presence is unable to both provide demonstrative reference and assert that the visual state reflects how things are. Turning to the descriptive element, I argue that Matthen is committed to a view on which descriptive (or image) content is a mental entity, a reified image. This is a common element across perceptual experience, episodic memory and visual imagination. The mental entity proves a defective ingredient in assembling perceptual content that purports to present reality. There are problems integrating the depicted viewpoint with the subject’s actual viewpoint, and problems maintaining a coherent notion of assertion. I argue that the project of assembling perceptual experience from descriptive and referential elements is unworkable.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Biological Functions and Perceptual Content.Mohan Matthen - 1988 - Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):5-27.
Image Content.Mohan Matthen - 2014 - In Berit Brogaard (ed.), Does Perception Have Content? Oxford University Press. pp. 265-290.
Is Perception a Propositional Attitude?Tim Crane - 2011 - In Katherine Hawley & Fiona Macpherson (eds.), The Admissible Contents of Experience. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley. pp. 83–100.
Does Perceptual Content Have to Be Objective? A Defence of Nonconceptualism.Eva Schmidt - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (1):201-214.
Perceptual Content Defended.Susanna Schellenberg - 2011 - Noûs 45 (4):714 - 750.
The Way Things Look: a Defence of Content.Andrea Giananti - 2019 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 10 (3):541-562.
Experience and Content.Alex Byrne - 2011 - In Katherine Hawley & Fiona Macpherson (eds.), The Admissible Contents of Experience. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley. pp. 60–82.
Explaining representation: a reply to Matthen.Frances Egan - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (1):137-142.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-22

Downloads
13 (#1,034,116)

6 months
8 (#356,676)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Action in Perception.Alva Noë - 2004 - MIT Press.
Varieties of presence.Alva Noë - 2012 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
The Mind's Construction: The Ontology of Mind and Mental Action.Matthew Soteriou - 2013 - Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
The transparency of experience.Michael G. F. Martin - 2002 - Mind and Language 17 (4):376-425.

View all 30 references / Add more references