Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source
‘If psychologists can really identify something that deserves to be called perception without awareness, they must have an operational grasp on not only what it takes to perceive something, but on what it takes to be conscious of it.
\citep[p.~148]{Dretske:2006fv}
 
--------
\subsection{slide-6}
We need to start by clarifying what we mean by perceiving. To this end I want to introduce an old story that we will also use later (for Sense \& Reference).
 
--------
\subsection{slide-16}
How did I get here?
 
--------
\subsection{slide-30}
Dretske introduces the notion of \emph{simple seeing} (see \citealp[chapter 6]{Dretske:2000ky}; the same thing is called as ‘nonepistemic seeing’ in \citep{Dretske:1969td}). The key characteristic of simple seeing: if X is the F, then \emph{S sees X} is equivalent to \emph{S sees the F}.
\citep[p.~54]{Dretske:1969td}.
 
‘Seeing objects is a way of getting information about them. What makes it seeing (rather than, say, hearing) is the intrinsic character of those events occurring in us that carry the information. What makes it X (rather than Y) that we see is that the information these internal events carry is information about X (rather than Y). Everything else [...] is [...] something the scientist, not the philosopher, should provide’ \citep[p.~112]{Dretske:2000ky}.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-32}
‘If psychologists can really identify something that deserves to be called perception without awareness, they must have an operational grasp on not only what it takes to perceive something, but on what it takes to be conscious of it.
\citep[p.~148]{Dretske:2006fv}
 
We have been clarifying what we mean by perceiving.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-34}
The question is trivial if we interpret ‘perceive’ so that this (Lois’ seeing superman but not being aware of the unbearable coward) counts as a case of perceiving without awareness.
 
To make this question hard, and therefore interesting, we need to understand ‘perceive’ in the sense of simple seeing.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-36}
‘Perception without awareness [...] is therefore to be understood as perception of some object without awareness [...] of that object’
\citep{Dretske:2006fv}.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-37}
Note that we have not attempted to discover the design of the mind, merely made a distinction.
 
‘Here lies the fatal flaw in [...] the philosophy of mind,
for, in using as evidence what seems reasonable or persuasive, philosophers ultimately rely on their own introspections.
They look inside themselves
in an attempt
to discover the design of the mind’
\citep[p.~380]{bridgeman2004philosophy}
 
‘If psychologists can really identify something that deserves to be called perception without awareness, they must have an operational grasp on not only what it takes to perceive something, but on what it takes to be conscious of it.
\citep[p.~148]{Dretske:2006fv}
 
Dretske introduces the notion of \emph{simple seeing} (see \citealp[chapter 6]{Dretske:2000ky}; the same thing is called as ‘nonepistemic seeing’ in \citep{Dretske:1969td}). The key characteristic of simple seeing: if X is the F, then \emph{S sees X} is equivalent to \emph{S sees the F}.
\citep[p.~54]{Dretske:1969td}.
 
‘Seeing objects is a way of getting information about them. What makes it seeing (rather than, say, hearing) is the intrinsic character of those events occurring in us that carry the information. What makes it X (rather than Y) that we see is that the information these internal events carry is information about X (rather than Y). Everything else [...] is [...] something the scientist, not the philosopher, should provide’ \citep[p.~112]{Dretske:2000ky}.
 
‘If psychologists can really identify something that deserves to be called perception without awareness, they must have an operational grasp on not only what it takes to perceive something, but on what it takes to be conscious of it.
\citep[p.~148]{Dretske:2006fv}
 
‘Perception without awareness [...] is therefore to be understood as perception of some object without awareness [...] of that object’
\citep{Dretske:2006fv}.
 

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)