Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com
MindPapers is now part of PhilPapers: online research in philosophy, a new service with many more features.
 
 Compiled by David Chalmers (Editor) & David Bourget (Assistant Editor), Australian National University. Submit an entry.
 
   
click here for help on how to search

3.4a. Perception and Thought (Perception and Thought on PhilPapers)

See also:
Boas, George (1952). The perceptual element in cognition. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 12 (June):486-494.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Casta, (1977). Perception, belief, and the structure of physical objects and consciousness. Synthese 35 (3).   (Cited by 24 | Google | More links)
Creighton, J. E. (1906). Experience and thought. Philosophical Review 15 (5):482-493.   (Google | More links)
Crumley II, Jack S. (1991). Appearances can be deceiving. Philosophical Studies 64 (3):233-251.   (Google)
Daniels, Charles B. (1988). Perception, thought, and reality. Noûs 22 (September):455-464.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
de Haas, Frans A. J. & Mansfeld, Jaap (eds.) (2004). Aristotle on Generation and Corruption, Book 1: Symposium Aristotelicum. Clarendon.   (Google)
Abstract: Jaap Mansfeld and Frans de Haas bring together in this volume a distinguished international team of ancient philosophers, presenting a systematic, chapter-by-chapter study of one of the key texts in Aristotle's science and metaphysics: the first book of On Generation and Corruption. In GC I Aristotle provides a general outline of physical processes such as generation and corruption, alteration, and growth, and inquires into their differences. He also discusses physical notions such as contact, action and passion, and mixture. These notions are fundamental to Aristotle's physics and cosmology, and more specifically to his theory of the four elements and their transformations. Moreover, references to GC elsewhere in the Aristotelian corpus show that in GC I Aristotle is doing heavy conceptual groundwork for more refined applications of these notions in, for example, the psychology of perception and thought, and the study of animal generation and corruption. Ultimately, biology is the goal of the series of enquiries in which GC I demands a position of its own immediately after the Physics. The contributors deal with questions of structure and text constitution and provide thought-provoking discussions of each chapter of GC I. New approaches to the issues of how to understand first matter, and how to evaluate Aristotle's notion of mixture are given ample space. Throughout, Aristotle's views of the theories of the Presocratics and Plato are shown to be crucial in understanding his argument
Dummett, Michael (1990). Thought and perception: The views of two philosophical innovators. In The Analytic Tradition: Philosophical Quarterly Monographs, Volume 1. Cambridge: Blackwell.   (Cited by 6 | Google)
Gl, (2004). On perceiving that. Theoria 70 (2-3):197-212.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Leighton, Joseph A. (1906). Cognitive thought and 'immediate' experience. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 3 (7):174-180.   (Google | More links)
Locke, Don (1968). Perceiving and thinking, part I. Aristotelian Society 173:173-190.   (Google)
Lyons, Jack C. (2005). Perceptual belief and nonexperiential looks. Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):237-256.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: How things look (or sound, taste, smell, etc.) plays two important roles in the epistemology of perception.1 First, our perceptual beliefs are episte- mically justified, at least in part, in virtue of how things look. Second, whether a given belief is a perceptual belief, as opposed to, say, an infer- ential belief, is also at least partly a matter of how things look. Together, these yield an epistemically significant sense of looks. A standard view is that how things look, in this epistemically significant sense, is a matter of ones present perceptual phenomenology, of what nondoxastic experiential state one is in. On this standard view, these experiential states (a) determine which of my beliefs are perceptual beliefs and (b) are centrally involved in justifying these beliefs
Macpherson, Fiona (forthcoming). 'Cognitive penetration of colour experience: Rethinking the issue in light of an indirect mechanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.   (Google)
Abstract: Can the phenomenal character of perceptual experience be altered by the states of one’s cognitive system, for example, one’s thoughts or beliefs? Ifone thinks that this can happen [at least in certain ways that are identWed in the paper] then one thinks that there can be cognitive penetration of perceptual experience; otherwise, one thinks that perceptual experience is cognitivelv impenetrable. I claim that there is one alleged case ofcognitive penetration that cannot be explained away by the standard strategies one can typicallv use to explain away alleged cases. The case is one in which it seems subjects’ beliefs about the typical colour of objects ajfects their colour experience. I propose a two-step mechanism of indirect cognitive penetration that explains how cognitive penetration may occur. I show that there is independent evidence that each step in this process can occur. I suspect that people who are opposed to the idea that perceptual experience is cognitivelv penetrable will be less opposed to the idea when they come to consider this indirect mechanism and that those who are generallv sympathetic to the idea ofcognitive penetrability will welcome the elucidation ofthis plausible mechanism
McClure, M. T. (1916). Perception and thinking. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 13 (13):345-354.   (Google | More links)
Nes, S. Anders (2006). Content in Thought and Perception. Dissertation, Oxford University. Dissertation, Oxford University   (Google)
Nicholas, John M. (1979). Leibniz: Apperception, perception, and thought. Journal of the History of Philosophy 17 (1).   (Google)
Noe, Alva (1999). Thought and experience. American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (3):257-65.   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Pendlebury, Michael J. (1999). Sensibility and understanding in perceptual judgments. South African Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):356-369.   (Google)
Pryor, James (online). An epistemic theory of acquaintance.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Abstract: For example, suppose you believe squirrels can live an extremely long time, like parrots and tortoises. You think to yourself, The oldest mammal in this town is probably a squirrel. Contrast that case to:
(2b) believing some animal you seean animal that happens to be the oldest mammal in
townto be a squirrel
I said theres a philosophically important di?erence between the (a) examples and the (b) examples. In fact these examples illustrate more than one di?erence. Lets try to disentangle the di?erent di?erences
Quinton, Anthony M. (1968). Perceiving and thinking, part II. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 191:191-208.   (Google)
Quillen, Keith (1989). Perceptual belief and psychological explanation. Philosophical Quarterly 39 (July):276-293.   (Google | More links)
Sabine, George H. (1907). The concreteness of thought. Philosophical Review 16 (2):154-169.   (Google | More links)
Schilder, Paul (1942). Mind: Perception And Thought In Their Constructive Aspects. Columbia University Press.   (Cited by 16 | Google)
Stokes, Dustin (ms). Perceiving and Desiring: A New Look at the Cognitive Penetrability of Experience.   (Google)
Abstract: This paper considers an orectic perception hypothesis which says that desires and desire-like states may influence perceptual experience in a non-externally mediated way. This hypothesis is clarified with a definition, which serves further to distinguish the interesting target phenomenon from trivial instances of desire-influenced perception. Orectic perception is an interesting possible case of the cognitive penetrability of perceptual experience. The orectic perception hypothesis is thus incompatible with the more common thesis that perception is cognitively impenetrable. It is of importance to issues in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, epistemology, and general philosophy of science. The plausibility of orectic perception can be motivated by some hypothetical cases, some classic experimental studies, and some new experimental research inspired by those same studies. The general suggestion is that orectic perception thus defined, and evidenced by the relevant studies, cannot be deflected by the standard strategies of the cognitive impenetrability theorist.
Stroud, Barry G. (2002). Sense-experience and the grounding of thought. In Reading McDowell: On Mind and World. New York: Routledge.   (Cited by 15 | Google)
Teschner, George (1981). The undifferentiated conjunction of sensation and judgment in perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (September):119-122.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Tolhurst, William E. (1998). Seemings. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (3):293-302.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Wieman, Henry N. (1943). Perception and cognition. Journal of Philosophy 40 (February):73-77.   (Google | More links)