The Goldilocks Problem of the specificity of visual phenomenal content

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (3-4):476-495 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Existentialist accounts maintain that visual phenomenal content takes the logical form of an existentially quantified sentence. These accounts do not make phenomenal content specific enough. Singularist accounts posit a singular content in which the seen object is a constituent. These accounts make phenomenal content too specific. My account gets the specificity of visual phenomenal content just right. My account begins with John Searle's suggestion that visual experience represents an object as seen, moves this relation outside the scope of the existential quantifier and then replaces it with the relation of objects being ‘present as accessible’, as described by Alva Noë

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-10-19

Downloads
688 (#37,276)

6 months
102 (#59,381)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Schroer
University of Minnesota, Duluth

Citations of this work

Singular Experiences (With and Without Objects).Angela Mendelovici - 2024 - In Robert French & Berit Brogaard (eds.), The Roles of Representations in Visual Perception. Springer. pp. 133--156.
Perceptual experiences of particularity.Błażej Skrzypulec - 2024 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 67 (6):1881-1907.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Varieties of Reference.Gareth Evans - 1982 - Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edited by John Henry McDowell.
Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind.John R. Searle - 1983 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Action in Perception.Alva Noë - 2004 - MIT Press.

View all 76 references / Add more references