structure for 'Knowledge Sources'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 3. Representation

[theory that mind represents in order to perceive]

23 ideas
Man is separated from reality [Democritus]
     Full Idea: It is necessary to recognise that man by virtue of this criterion is separated from reality.
     From: Democritus (fragments/reports [c.431 BCE], B006), quoted by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Logicians (two books) 7.137
     A reaction: I don't know what 'this criterion' is, but it strikes me as quite a good slogan for fans (like myself) of the representative theory of perception. Critics say it is the big objection to the representative theory, but I say 'get over it'.
In moral thought images are essential, to be pursued or avoided [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: In the thinking soul, images play the part of percepts, and the assertion or negation of good or bad is invariably accompanied by avoidance or pursuit, which is the reason for the soul's never thinking without an image.
     From: Aristotle (De Anima [c.329 BCE], 431a15)
Minds take in a likeness of things, which activates an awaiting potential [Aquinas]
     Full Idea: What the mind takes in is not some material element of the agent, but a likeness of the agent actualising some potential the patient already has. This, for example, is the way our seeing takes in the colour of a coloured body.
     From: Thomas Aquinas (Quodlibeta [1267], 8.2.1)
     A reaction: This is exactly right. Descartes agreed. It works for colour, but not (obviously) for cheese graters.
Descartes said images can refer to objects without resembling them (as words do) [Descartes, by Tuck]
     Full Idea: Descartes argued (in 'The World') that just as words refer to objects, but they do not resemble them, in the same way, visual images or other sensory inputs relate to objects without depicting them.
     From: report of René Descartes (works [1643]) by Richard Tuck - Hobbes
     A reaction: This strikes me as a rather significant and plausible claim, which might contain the germ of the idea of a language of thought. It is also the basis for the recent view that language is the best route to understanding the mind.
We can only know the exterior world via our ideas [Arnauld,A/Nicole,P]
     Full Idea: We can have knowledge of what is outside us only through the mediation of ideas in us.
     From: Arnauld / Nicole (Logic (Port-Royal Art of Thinking) [1662], p.63), quoted by J. Alberto Coffa - The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap 1 'Conc'
A pain doesn't resemble the movement of a pin, but it resembles the bodily movement pins cause [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: It is true that pain does not resemble the movement of a pin; but it might thoroughly resemble the motions which the pin causes in our body, and it might resemble them in the soul; and I have not the least doubt that it does.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (New Essays on Human Understanding [1704], 2.08)
     A reaction: He may not have the least doubt, but the rest of us do, I should think. Try as I will, I cannot see any resemblance between pain and a motion. What feeling does a pendulum resemble?
Immediate objects of perception, which some treat as appearances, I treat as the real things themselves [Berkeley]
     Full Idea: Those immediate objects of perception, which, according to you, are only appearances of things, I take to be the real things themselves.
     From: George Berkeley (Three Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous [1713], III p.237)
     A reaction: If that is a judgement, which it seems to be, it is a strange one. Realists offer a much better explanation of perceptions.
Berkeley's idealism resulted from fear of scepticism in representative realism [Robinson,H on Berkeley]
     Full Idea: It was fear of scepticism based upon representative realism that motivated Berkeley's idealism.
     From: comment on George Berkeley (The Principles of Human Knowledge [1710]) by Howard Robinson - Perception II.1
     A reaction: Personally I side with Russell, who accepts representative realism, and also accepts that some degree of scepticism is unavoidable, but without getting excited about it. The key to everything is to be a 'fallibilist' about knowledge.
It never occurs to people that they only experience representations, not the real objects [Hume]
     Full Idea: Men instinctively suppose the very images presented by the senses to be the external objects, and never entertain any suspicion that the one is nothing but representations of the other.
     From: David Hume (Enquiry Conc Human Understanding [1748], XII.I.117)
I can't intuit a present thing in itself, because the properties can't enter my representations [Kant]
     Full Idea: It seems inconceivable how the intuition of a thing that is present should make me know it as it is in itself, for its properties cannot migrate into my faculty of representation.
     From: Immanuel Kant (Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic [1781], 282)
     A reaction: One might compare this with Locke's distinction of primary and secondary, where the primary properties seem to 'migrate into my faculty of representation', but the secondary ones fail to do so. I think I prefer Locke. This idea threatens idealism.
Russell's representationalism says primary qualities only show the structure of reality [Russell, by Robinson,H]
     Full Idea: The weakest version of representationalism, found in Russell, asserts that there is no resemblance to reality on the level of secondary qualities, and also that primary qualities exhibit only a structural isomorphism.
     From: report of Bertrand Russell (Problems of Philosophy [1912]) by Howard Robinson - Perception IX.2
     A reaction: This seems a plausible thing to say about, say, shape, but it is not clear how the idea works for hardness or mass. The sense of touch seems to be much more directly in contact with actual primary qualities than visions does (let alone smell or hearing).
Representation assumes you know the ideas, and the reality, and the relation between the two [Ryle]
     Full Idea: The theory of Representative Ideas begs the whole question, by assuming a) that we can know these 'Ideas', b) that we can know the realities they represent, and c) we can know a particular 'idea' to be representative of a particular reality.
     From: Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
     A reaction: Personally I regard the ideas as immediate (rather than acquired by some knowledge process), and I am dimly hoping that they represent reality (or I'm in deep trouble), and I am struggling to piece together the reality they represent. I'm happy with that.
Elephants can be correctly identified from as few as three primitive shapes [Goldman]
     Full Idea: An elephant may be fully represented by nine primitive shapes ('geons'), but it may require as few as three geons in appropriate relations to be correctly identified.
     From: Alvin I. Goldman (Phil Applications of Cognitive Science [1993], p.7)
     A reaction: Encouraging the idea of the mind as a maker of maps and models
Representation must be propositional if it can give reasons and be epistemological [McDowell, by Burge]
     Full Idea: McDowell has claimed that one cannot make sense of representation that plays a role in epistemology unless one takes the representation to be propositional, and thus capable of yielding reasons.
     From: report of John McDowell (Mind and World [1994]) by Tyler Burge - Philosophy of Mind: 1950-2000 p.456
     A reaction: A transcendental argument leads back to a somewhat implausible conclusion. I suspect that McDowell has a slightly inflated (Kantian) notion of the purity of the 'space of reasons'. Do philosophers just imagine their problems?
To see something as a field, I obviously need the concept of a field [Audi,R]
     Full Idea: The propositional belief which portrays what I see in front of me AS a field requires my having a concept of one.
     From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.17)
     A reaction: To me this immediately invites the question of what a cow or horse experiences when they look at a familiar field. They know how to leave and enter it, and register its boundaries and qualities. Concepts?
How could I see a field and believe nothing regarding it? [Audi,R]
     Full Idea: How could I see a field and believe nothing regarding it?
     From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], I p.20)
We see objects 'directly' by representing them [McGinn]
     Full Idea: My view is that we see objects 'directly' by representing them in visual experience.
     From: Colin McGinn (Subjective View: sec qualities and indexicals [1983], Ch.8 n1)
     A reaction: [Quoted by Maund] This rejects both inference in perception and sense-data, while retaining the notion of representation. It is a view which has gained a lot of support. But how can it be direct if it represents? Photographs can't do that.
The representational theory says perceptual states are intentional states [Scruton]
     Full Idea: The representational theory is the unsurprising view that perceptual states are intentional, like beliefs, emotions and desires.
     From: Roger Scruton (Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey [1994], 23.3)
Most moderate empiricists adopt Locke's representative theory of perception [Robinson,H]
     Full Idea: The representative theory of perception is found in Locke, and is adopted by most moderate empiricists.
     From: Howard Robinson (Perception [1994], 1.2)
     A reaction: This is, I think, my own position. Anything less than fairly robust realism strikes me as being a bit mad (despite Berkeley's endless assertions that he is preaching common sense), and direct realism seems obviously false.
One must be able to visually recognise a table, as well as knowing its form [Lowe]
     Full Idea: A bare knowledge that tables have a particular form will not enable one to recognise a table visually, unless one knows how something with such a form typically appears or looks from a variety of different angles.
     From: E.J. Lowe (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2000], Ch. 6)
     A reaction: This seems to be a rather significant point, if we are trying to work out how concepts and models operate in the process of perception. Lowe points out that with electrons, we have some knowledge of the form, but no capacity for recognition.
Computationalists object that the 'ecological' approach can't tell us how we get the information [Lowe]
     Full Idea: Computational psychologists object to the 'ecological' approach to perception (with its externalist, direct realist picture), because it leaves us entirely in the dark as to how our senses 'pick up' information about the environment.
     From: E.J. Lowe (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2000], Ch. 6)
     A reaction: I find myself siding with the computationalists, but then I have always favoured the representational view of perception among philosophers. Lowe comments that both approaches neglect actual experience. We construct models, e.g. of London.
Comparing shapes is proportional in time to the angle of rotation [Lowe]
     Full Idea: When two objects, one of them rotated, are compared, the length of time it takes the subjects to determine they are of the same shape is roughly proportional to the size of angle of rotation, ...which suggests analogue modes of representation.
     From: E.J. Lowe (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2000], Ch. 7)
     A reaction: I consider this to be highly significant for our whole understanding of the mind, which I think of as a set of models organised like a database. Think about the weather, phenomenalism, London, the Renaissance, your leg. You play with models.
The representation may not be a likeness [Velarde-Mayol]
     Full Idea: Representationalism is the doctrine that maintains that the object is represented in consciousness by means of an image. ...One should not confuse an image with a likeness.
     From: Victor Velarde-Mayol (On Husserl [2000], 2.4.3)
     A reaction: Helpful reminder that sense-data or whatever may not be a likeness. But then how do they represent? Symbolic representation needs massive interpretation.