Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com
MindPapers is now part of PhilPapers: online research in philosophy, a new service with many more features.
updated 2009-03-05 00:00:00
 Compiled by David Chalmers (Editor) & David Bourget (Assistant Editor), Australian National University. Submit an entry.
 
   
click here for help on how to search

5.1h. Imagination (Imagination on PhilPapers)

See also:
Bartsch, Renate (2002). Consciousness Emerging: The Dynamics of Perception, Imagination, Action, Memory, Thought, and Language. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links | Edit)
Chalmers, David J. (2004). Imagination, indexicality, and intensions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):182-90.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: John Perry's book Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness is a lucid and engaging defense of a physicalist view of consciousness against various anti-physicalist arguments. In what follows, I will address Perry's responses to the three main anti-physicalist arguments he discusses: the zombie argument (focusing on imagination), the knowledge argument (focusing on indexicals), and the modal argument (focusing on intensions)
Coward, L. Andrew & Sun, Ron (2001). A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. Basic Books.   (Google | Edit)
Currie, Gregory (1995). Imagination as simulation: Aesthetics meets cognitive science. In Martin Davies & Tony Stone (eds.), Mental Simulation. Blackwell.   (Cited by 29 | Google | Edit)
Currie, Gregory (2000). Imagination, delusion and hallucinations. In Max Coltheart & Martin Davies (eds.), Pathologies of Belief. Blackwell.   (Cited by 21 | Google | More links | Edit)
De Mey, Tim (2006). Imagination's grip on science. Metaphilosophy 37 (2):222-239.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: In part because "imagination" is a slippery notion, its exact role in the production of scientific knowledge remains unclear. There is, however, one often explicit and deliberate use of imagination by scientists that can be (and has been) studied intensively by epistemologists and historians of science: thought experiments. The main goal of this article is to document the varieties of thought experimentation, not so much in terms of the different sciences in which they occur but rather in terms of the different functions they fulfil. I argue that thought experimentation (and hence imagination) plays a role not only in theory choice but in singular causal analysis and scientific discovery as well. I pinpoint, moreover, some of the rules governing the use of thought experiments in theory choice and in singular causal analysis, that is, some of the criteria they should meet in order to fulfil those functions successfully
Dilworth, John B. (2008). Imaginative Versus Analytical Experiences of Wines. In Fritz Allhoff (ed.), Wine and Philosophy. Blackwell.   (Google | Edit)
Abstract: The highly enjoyable experiences associated with drinking good wines have been widely misunderstood. It is common to regard wine appreciation as an analytical or quasi-scientific kind of activity, in which wine experts carefully distinguish the precise sensory qualities of each wine, and then pass on their accumulated factual knowledge to less experienced wine enthusiasts. However, this model of wine appreciation is seriously defective. One good way to show its defects is to provide a better and more fundamental scientific account of what is involved in wine appreciation. In order to do so, I outline a novel, evolutionarily based theory of perceptual consciousness that explains why there must be imaginative as well as analytical kinds of experiences of wines. In addition, imaginative wine experiences, unlike typical imaginative artistic experiences, may be shown to involve highly individualistic, improvisatory elements that help to give wine drinking a unique place among the recreational arts
Edelman, Gerald M. & Tononi, Giulio (2000). A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. Basic Books.   (Cited by 701 | Google | More links | Edit)
Flew, Antony G. N. (1956). Facts and 'imagination'. Mind 65 (July):392-399.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Gert, Bernard (1965). Imagination and verifiability. Philosophical Studies 16 (3):44-47.   (Cited by 2 | Annotation | Google | More links | Edit)
Goldie, Peter (2005). Imagination and the distorting power of emotion. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (8-10):127-139.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: _In real life, emotions can distort practical reasoning, typically in ways that it is_ _difficult to realise at the time, or to envisage and plan for in advance. This fea-_ _ture of real life emotional experience raises difficulties for imagining such expe-_ _riences through centrally imagining, or imagining ‘from the inside’. I argue_ _instead for the important psychological role played by another kind of imagin-_ _ing: imagining from an external perspective. This external perspective can draw_ _on the dramatic irony involved in imagining these typical cases, where one_ _knows outside the scope of the imagining what one does not know as part of the_ _content of what one imagines: namely, that the imagined emotion is distorting_ _one’s reasoning. Moreover, imagining from an external perspective allows one_ _to evaluate the imagined events in a way that imagining from the inside does not._
Goldie, Peter (2006). Wollheim on emotion and imagination. Philosophical Studies 127 (1):1-17.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Heal, Jane (2003). Mind, Reason, and Imagination: Selected Essays in Philosophy of Mind and Language. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Recent philosophy of mind has had a mistaken conception of the nature of psychological concepts. It has assumed too much similarity between psychological judgments and those of natural science and has thus overlooked the fact that other people are not just objects whose thoughts we may try to predict and control but fellow creatures with whom we talk and co-operate. In this collection of essays, Jane Heal argues that central to our ability to arrive at views about others' thoughts is not knowledge of some theory of the mind but rather an ability to imagine alternative worlds and how things appear from another person's point of view. She then applies this view to questions of how we represent others' thoughts, the shape of psychological concepts, the nature of rationality and the possibility of first person authority. This book should appeal to students and professionals in philosophy of mind and language
Hertzberg, Lars (1991). Imagination and the sense of identity. In Human Beings. New York: Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 2 | Google | Edit)
Ichikawa, Jonathan (2009). Dreaming and imagination. Mind and Language 24 (1):103-121.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Penultimate draft; please refer to published version. I argue, on philosophical, psychological, and neurophysiological grounds, that contrary to an orthodox view, dreams do not typically involve misleading sensations and false beliefs. I am thus in partial agreement with Colin McGinn, who has argued that we do not have misleading sensory experience while dreaming, and partially in agreement with Ernest Sosa, who has argued that we do not form false beliefs while dreaming. Rather, on my view, dreams involve mental imagery and propositional imagination. I defend the imagination model of dreaming from some objections
Ishiguro, Hilde (1966). Imagination. In British Analytical Philosophy. London,: Routledge & K Paul,.   (Cited by 6 | Google | Edit)
Johnson, Mark L. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press.   (Cited by 2049 | Google | Edit)
Keyser, Cassius J. (1911). The asymmetry of the imagination. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 8 (12):309-316.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Kind, Amy (online). Imagery and imagination.   (Google | Edit)
Abstract: Both imagery and imagination play an important part in our mental lives. This article, which has three main sections, discusses both of these phenomena, and the connection between them. The first part discusses mental images and, in particular, the dispute about their representational nature that has become known as the _imagery debate_ . The second part turns to the faculty of the imagination, discussing the long philosophical tradition linking mental imagery and the imagination—a tradition that came under attack in the early part of the twentieth century with the rise of behaviorism. Finally, the third part of this article examines modal epistemology, where the imagination has been thought to serve an important philosophical function, namely, as a guide to possibility
Modell, Arnold H. (2003). Imagination and the Meaningful Brain. Bradford Book/MIT Press.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: " In Imagination and the Meaningful Brain, psychoanalyst Arnold Modell claims that subjective human experience must be included in any scientific...
Morley, James (2005). Introduction: Phenomenology of imagination. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (2).   (Cited by 8 | Google | Edit)
Murata, Junichi (1999). The indeterminacy of images: An approach to a phenomenology of the imagination. In Phenomenology: Japanese and American Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.   (Google | Edit)
Neuman, Matthias (1978). Towards an integrated theory of imagination. International Philosophical Quarterly 18 (September):251-275.   (Google | Edit)
Nichols, Shaun (2004). Imagining and believing: The promise of a single code. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (2):129-39.   (Cited by 8 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Recent cognitive accounts of the imagination propose that imagining and believing are in the same “code”. According to the single code hypothesis, cognitive mechanisms that can take input from both imagining and from believing will process imagination-based inputs (“pretense representations”) and isomorphic beliefs in much the same way. In this paper, I argue that the single code hypothesis provides a unified and independently motivated explanation for a wide range of puzzles surrounding fiction
Nichols, Shaun (2002). Imagination and the puzzles of iteration. Analysis 62 (3):182-87.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Iteration presents opposing puzzles for a theory of the imagination. The first puzzle, noted by David Lewis, is that when a person pretends to pretend, the iteration is often preserved. Let’s call this the puzzle of ‘pre- served iteration’. At the other pole, Gregory Currie has noted that very often when we pretend to pretend, the iteration does collapse. We might call this the puzzle of ‘collapsed iteration’. Somehow a theory of the imagination must be able to address these two puzzles. I argue that an empirically inspired cognitive theory of the imagination (Nichols & Stich 2000) can accommodate both puzzles
Nichols, Shaun (ed.) (2006). The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 2 | Google | Edit)
Abstract: This volume brings together specially written essays by leading researchers on the propositional imagination. This is the mental capacity we exploit when we imagine that Holmes has a bad habit or that there are zombies. It plays an essential role in philosophical theorizing, engaging with fiction, and indeed in everyday life. The Architecture of the Imagination capitalizes on recent attempts to give a cognitive account of this capacity, extending the theoretical picture and exploring the philosophical implications
Nigel, Thomas (1998). Imagination, eliminativism, and the pre-history of consciousness. Consciousness Research Abstracts 3.   (Google | Edit)
Abstract: Classical and medieval writers had no term for consciousness in anything like the modern sense, and their philosophy seems not to have been troubled by the mind-body problem. Contemporary eliminativists find strong support in this fact for their claim that consciousness does not exist, or, at least, is not an appropriate scientific explanandum. They typically hold that contemporary conceptions of consciousness are artefacts of Descartes' (now outmoded) views about matter and his unrealistic craving for epistemological certainty. Essentially, they say, our belief in consciousness is a residue of once pressing, but now irrelevant, intellectual tensions between religion and the rising new science of the Early Modern period. With the attempts of Descartes and his successors to resolve these tensions, Western thought began down a track toward the conceptual cul-de-sac of the "hard problem". Plausibly, the problem will only be (dis)solved, and the onward march of science assured, when we are able to shake off the pervasive influence of the Cartesian tradition in a way that goes far beyond the mere rejection of dualism. But when we do so, eliminativists contend, the distinctively Cartesian notion of consciousness will simply drop out of our world-picture, like phlogiston or the vital entelechy
Noordhof, Paul (2002). Imagining objects and imagining experiences. Mind and Language 17 (4):426-455.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links | Edit)
O'Brien, Lucy F. (2005). Imagination and the motivational role of belief. Analysis 65 (285):55-62.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links | Edit)
Pendlebury, Michael J. (1996). The role of imagination in perception. South African Journal of Philosophy 15 (4):133-138.   (Google | Edit)
Phillips, Jamie L. (1999). Can imagination provide prima facie justification for possibility? A problem for Tye. Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):149-156.   (Google | Edit)
Philips, J. & Morley, James (eds.) (2003). Imagination and its Pathologies. MIT Press.   (Google | Edit)
Rabb, J. Douglas (1975). Prolegomenon to a phenomenology of imagination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 36 (September):74-81.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Russow, Lilly-Marlene (1978). Some recent work on imagination. American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (January):57-66.   (Cited by 2 | Google | Edit)
Russow, Lilly-Marlene (1980). Towards a theory of imagination. Southern Journal of Philosophy 18:353-370.   (Cited by 1 | Google | Edit)
Shorter, J. M. (1952). Imagination. Mind 61 (October):528-542.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links | Edit)
Silverman, Hugh J. (1978). Imagining, perceiving, and remembering. Humanitas 14 (May):197-207.   (Google | Edit)
Smith, Joel (2006). Bodily awareness, imagination, and the self. European Journal Of Philosophy 14 (1):49-68.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Common wisdom tells us that we have five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. These senses provide us with a means of gaining information concerning objects in the world around us, including our own bodies. But in addition to these five senses, each of us is aware of our own body in way in which we are aware of no other thing. These ways include our awareness of the position, orientation, movement, and size of our limbs (proprioception and kinaesthesia), our sense of balance, and our awareness of bodily sensations such as pains, tickles, and sensations of pressure or temperature. We can group these together under the title
Snoeyenbos, Milton H. (1977). On the concept of imagination. Darshana International 17 (October):34-39.   (Google | Edit)
Stevenson, Leslie F. (2003). Twelve conceptions of imagination. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):238-59.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: The ability to think of something not presently perceived, but spatio-temporally real. (2) The ability to think of whatever one acknowledges as possible in the spatio-temporal world. (3) The liability to think of something that the subject believes to be real, but which is not. (4) The ability to think of things that one conceives of as fictional. (5) The ability to entertain mental images. (6) The ability to think of anything at all. (7) The non-rational operations of the mind, that is, those explicable in terms of causes rather than reasons. (8) The ability to form perceptual beliefs about public objects in space and time. (9) The ability to sensuously appreciate works of art or objects of natural beauty without classifying them under concepts or thinking of them as useful. (10) The ability to create works of art that encourage such sensuous appreciation. (11) The ability to appreciate things that are expressive or revelatory of the meaning of human life. (12) The ability to create works of art that express something deep about the meaning of life
Stoljar, Daniel (2006). Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 9 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Ignorance and Imagination advances a novel way to resolve the central philosophical problem about the mind: how it is that consciousness or experience fits into a larger naturalistic picture of the world. The correct response to the problem, Stoljar argues, is not to posit a realm of experience distinct from the physical, nor to deny the reality of phenomenal experience, nor even to rethink our understanding of consciousness and the language we use to talk about it. Instead, we should view the problem itself as a consequence of our ignorance of the relevant physical facts. Stoljar shows that this change of orientation is well motivated historically, empirically, and philosophically, and that it has none of the side effects it is sometimes thought to have. The result is a philosophical perspective on the mind that has a number of far-reaching consequences: for consciousness studies, for our place in nature, and for the way we think about the relationship between philosophy and science
Stuart, Susan A. J. (2007). Machine consciousness: Cognitive and kinaesthetic imagination. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (7):141-153.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Machine consciousness exists already in organic systems and it is only a matter of time -- and some agreement -- before it will be realised in reverse-engineered organic systems and forward- engineered inorganic systems. The agreement must be over the preconditions that must first be met if the enterprise is to be successful, and it is these preconditions, for instance, being a socially-embedded, structurally-coupled and dynamic, goal-directed entity that organises its perceptual input and enacts its world through the application of both a cognitive and kinaesthetic imagination, that I shall concentrate on presenting in this paper. It will become clear that these preconditions will present engineers with a tall order, but not, I will argue, an impossible one. After all, we might agree with Freeman and Núñez's claim that the machine metaphor has restricted the expectations of the cognitive sciences (Freeman & Núñez, 1999); but it is a double-edged sword, since our limited expectations about machines also narrow the potential of our cognitive science
Taylor, Paul (1981). Imagination and information. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (December):205-223.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Thomas, Nigel J. T. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science 23 (2):207-245.   (Cited by 117 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Can theories of mental imagery, conscious mental contents, developed within cognitive science throw light on the obscure (but culturally very significant) concept of imagination? Three extant views of mental imagery are considered: quasi-pictorial, description, and perceptual activity theories. The first two face serious theoretical and empirical difficulties. The third is (for historically contingent reasons) little known, theoretically underdeveloped, and empirically untried, but has real explanatory potential. It rejects the "traditional" symbolic computational view of mental contents, but is compatible with recent *situated cognition* and *active vision* approaches in robotics. This theory is developed and elucidated. Three related key aspects of imagination (non-discursiveness, creativity, and *seeing as*) raise difficulties for the other theories. Perceptual activity theory presents imagery as non-discursive and relates it closely to *seeing as*. It is thus well placed to be the basis for a general theory of imagination and its role in creative thought
Thomas, Nigel J. T. (online). Imagination. Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind.   (Google | Edit)
Thomas, Nigel J. T. (1997). Imagery and the coherence of imagination: A critique of white. Journal of Philosophical Research 22 (April):95-127.   (Cited by 5 | Google | Edit)
Abstract: This article defends tradition and common sense against a widespread and rarely questioned contemporary philosophical orthodoxy that underpins the entrenched and exorbitant "lingualism" of so much 20th century thought, and leads the way to extreme doctrines like cognitive relativism and eliminative materialism. It also plugs what might otherwise have seemed to be a significant hole in the argument of my Are Theories of Imagery Theories of Imagination? (which I regard as my main positive contribution so far to the understanding of the mind). For a relatively brief overview of the situation in cognitive theory and consciousness studies, as I see it, see A Stimulus to the Imagination. Click here to view the full article: Imagery and the Coherence of Imagination: a Critique of White. Earlier drafts of this article, one entitled "The White Images of Imagery and Imagination: A Critique and an Alternative", were formerly available on the net. Please make any citations to the published version. - N.J.T.T
Thomas, Nigel J. T. (1998). Imagination, eliminativism, and the pre-history of consciousness. Consciousness Research Abstracts 3.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Classical and medieval writers had no term for consciousness in anything like the modern sense, and their philosophy seems not to have been troubled by the mind-body problem. Contemporary eliminativists find strong support in this fact for their claim that consciousness does not exist, or, at least, is not an appropriate scientific explanandum. They typically hold that contemporary conceptions of consciousness are artefacts of Descartes' (now outmoded) views about matter and his unrealistic craving for epistemological certainty. Essentially, they say, our belief in consciousness is a residue of once pressing, but now irrelevant, intellectual tensions between religion and the rising new science of the Early Modern period. With the attempts of Descartes and his successors to resolve these tensions, Western thought began down a track toward the conceptual cul-de-sac of the "hard problem". Plausibly, the problem will only be (dis)solved, and the onward march of science assured, when we are able to shake off the pervasive influence of the Cartesian tradition in a way that goes far beyond the mere rejection of dualism. But when we do so, eliminativists contend, the distinctively Cartesian notion of consciousness will simply drop out of our world-picture, like phlogiston or the vital entelechy
Thomas, Nigel J. T. (2003). Imagining minds. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (11):79-84.   (Google | Edit)
Thomas, Alan (online). Perceptual knowledge, representation and imagination.   (Google | Edit)
Abstract: The focus of this paper will be on the problem of perceptual presence and on a solution to this problem pioneered by Kant [1781; 1783] and refined by Sellars [Sellars, 1978] and Strawson [Strawson, 1971]. The problem of perceptual presence is that of explaining how our perceptual experience of the world gives us a robust sense of the presence of objects in perception over and above those sensory aspects of the object given in perception. Objects possess other properties which are, one might say, phenomenologically present even though they are admittedly sensorily absent. The general form of the solution to this problem that Kant developed seems to me to be a neglected resource in contemporary work on perceptual consciousness. Kant solves the problem of perceptual presence by appealing to that which he called the productive use of the imagination. This faculty of mind supplies schematic representations of the object of perception that explains a phenomenological sense of perceptual presence even of those features that are not, in a sense to be further clarified,
Urmson, J. O. (1971). Memory and imagination. Mind 80 (1):70-92.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Weatherson, Brian (ms). Morality in fiction and consciousness in imagination.   (Cited by 2 | Google | Edit)
Weinberg, Jonathan M. & Meskin, Aaron (2006). Imagine that! In Matthew Kieran (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. Blackwell Publishing.   (Google | Edit)
Weinberg, Jonathan M. & Meskin, Aaron (2006). Puzzling over the imagination: Philosophical problems, architectural solutions. In Shaun Nichols (ed.), The Architecture of the Imagination: New Essays on Pretence, Possibility, and Fiction. Oxford.   (Google | More links | Edit)
White, Alan R. (1988). Imagining and pretending. Philosophical Investigations 11 (October):300-314.   (Cited by 1 | Google | Edit)
White, Alan R. (1989). Imaginary imagining. Analysis 49 (March):81-83.   (Cited by 1 | Google | Edit)
White, Alan R. (1990). The Language of Imagination. Cambridge: Blackwell.   (Cited by 27 | Google | Edit)
White, Alan R. (1987). Visualizing and imagining seeing. Analysis 47 (October):221-224.   (Cited by 1 | Google | Edit)
White, Alan R. (1986). Ways of speaking of imagination. Analysis 46 (June):152-156.   (Google | Edit)
Woody, M. J. (2003). The unconscious as a hermeneutic myth: A defense of the imagination. In J. Philips & James Morley (eds.), Imagination and its Pathologies. MIT Press.   (Cited by 1 | Google | Edit)

5.1h.1 Imaginative Resistance

5.1h.2 Imagination and Imagery

Abell, Catharine & Currie, Gregory (1999). Internal and external pictures. Philosophical Psychology 12 (4):429-445.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: What do pictures and mental images have in common? The contemporary tendency to reject mental picture theories of imagery suggests that the answer is: not much. We show that pictures and visual imagery have something important in common. They both contribute to mental simulations: pictures as inputs and mental images as outputs. But we reject the idea that mental images involve mental pictures, and we use simulation theory to strengthen the anti-pictorialist's case. Along the way we try to account for caricature and for some basic features of pictorial representations
Casey, Edward S. (1971). Imagination: Imagining and the image. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (June):475-490.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (2006). Imaginative contagion. Metaphilosophy 37 (2):183-203.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: The aim of this article is to expand the diet of examples considered in philosophical discussions of imagination and pretense, and to offer some preliminary observations about what we might learn about the nature of imagination as a result. The article presents a number of cases involving imaginative contagion: cases where merely imagining or pretending that P has effects that we would expect only perceiving or believing that P to have. Examples are offered that involve visual imagery, motor imagery, fictional emotions, and social priming. It is suggested that imaginative contagion is a more prevalent phenomenon than has typically been recognized
Joyce, P. (2003). Imagining experiences correctly. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (3):361-370.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Kind, Amy (2001). Putting the image back in imagination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):85-110.   (Cited by 6 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Despite their intuitive appeal and a long philosophical history, imagery-based accounts of the imagination have fallen into disfavor in contemporary discussions. The philosophical pressure to reject such accounts seems to derive from two distinct sources. First, the fact that mental images have proved difficult to accommodate within a scientific conception of mind has led to numerous attempts to explain away their existence, and this in turn has led to attempts to explain the phenomenon of imagining without reference to such ontologically dubious entities as mental images. Second, even those philosophers who accept mental images in their ontology have worried about what seem to be fairly obvious examples of imaginings that occur without imagery. In this paper, I aim to relieve both these points of philosophical pressure and, in the process, develop a new imagery-based account of the imagination: the imagery model

5.1h.3 Imagination and Pretense

Blaauw, Martijn (2006). Belief and pretense: A reply to Gendler. Metaphilosophy 37 (2):204-209.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: In cases of imaginative contagion, imagining something has doxastic or doxastic-like consequences. In this reply to Tamar Szabó Gendler's article in this collection, I investigate what the philosophical consequences of these cases could be. I argue (i) that imaginative contagion has consequences for how we should understand the nature of imagination and (ii) that imaginative contagion has consequences for our understanding of what belief-forming mechanisms there are. Along the way, I make some remarks about what the consequences of the contagion cases are for the relation between knowledge and imagination
Bogdan, Radu J. (2005). Pretending as imaginative rehearsal for cultural conformity. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5 (1-2):191-213.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Currie, Gregory (2002). Desire in imagination. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 6 | Google | Edit)
Currie, Gregory (2002). Imagination as motivation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (3):201-16.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links | Edit)
Currie, Gregory & Ravenscroft, Ian (2002). Recreative Minds: Imagination in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 90 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Recreative Minds develops a philosophical theory of imagination that draws upon the latest work in psychology. This theory illuminates the use of imagination in coming to terms with art, its role in enabling us to live as social beings, and the psychological consequences of disordered imagination. The authors offer a lucid exploration of a fascinating subject
Doggett, Tyler & Egan, Andy (2007). Wanting things you don't want: The case for an imaginative analogue of desire. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (9):1-17.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: You’re imagining, in the course of a different game of make-believe, that you’re a bank robber. You don’t believe that you’re a bank robber. You are moved to point your finger, gun-wise, at the person pretending to be the bank teller and say, “Stick ‘em up! This is a robbery!”
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (2006). Imaginative contagion. Metaphilosophy 37 (2):183-203.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: The aim of this article is to expand the diet of examples considered in philosophical discussions of imagination and pretense, and to offer some preliminary observations about what we might learn about the nature of imagination as a result. The article presents a number of cases involving imaginative contagion: cases where merely imagining or pretending that P has effects that we would expect only perceiving or believing that P to have. Examples are offered that involve visual imagery, motor imagery, fictional emotions, and social priming. It is suggested that imaginative contagion is a more prevalent phenomenon than has typically been recognized
Gendler, Tamar Szabó (2003). On the relation between pretense and belief. In Imagination Philosophy and the Arts. Routledge.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: By the age of two, children are able to engage in highly elaborate games of symbolic pretense, in which objects and actions in the actual world are taken to stand for objects and actions in a realm of make-believe. These games of pretense are marked by the presence of two central features, which I will call quarantining and mirroring (see also Leslie 1987; Perner 1991). Quarantining is manifest to the extent that events within the pretense-episode are taken to have effects only within that pretense-episode (e.g. the child does not expect that ‘spilling’ ( pretend) ‘tea’1 will result in the table really being wet), or more generally, to the extent that proto-beliefs and proto-attitudes concerning the pretended state of affairs are not treated as beliefs and attitudes relevant to guiding action in the actual world. Mirroring is manifest to the extent that features of the imaginary situation that have not been explicitly stipulated are derivable via features of their real-world analogues (e.g. the child does expect that if she up-ends the teapot above the table, then the table will become wet in the pretense), or, more generally to the extent that imaginative content is taken to be governed by the same sorts of restrictions that govern believed content
Harris, Paul L. (1995). Imagining and pretending. In Mental Simulation. Cambridge: Blackwell.   (Cited by 7 | Google | Edit)

5.1h.4 Imagination, Misc

Casey, Edward S. (1976). Imagining: A Phenomenological Study. Indiana University Press.   (Cited by 36 | Google | More links | Edit)
Casey, Edward S. (1977). Imagining and remembering. Review of Metaphysics 31 (December):187-209.   (Cited by 3 | Google | Edit)
Casey, Edward S. (2003). Imagination, fantasy, hallucination, and memory. In J. Philips & James Morley (eds.), Imagination and its Pathologies. MIT Press.   (Google | Edit)
Casey, Edward S. (1971). Imagination: Imagining and the image. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (June):475-490.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links | Edit)
Casey, Edward S. (1978). Imagining, perceiving, and thinking. Humanitas 14 (May):173-196.   (Google | Edit)
Church, Jennifer (2003). Depression, depth, and the imagination. In J. Philips & James Morley (eds.), Imagination and its Pathologies. MIT Press.   (Google | Edit)
Currie, Gregory & Ravenscroft, Ian (2002). Recreative Minds: Imagination in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 90 | Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: Recreative Minds develops a philosophical theory of imagination that draws upon the latest work in psychology. This theory illuminates the use of imagination in coming to terms with art, its role in enabling us to live as social beings, and the psychological consequences of disordered imagination. The authors offer a lucid exploration of a fascinating subject
Doggett, Tyler & Egan, Andy (2007). Wanting things you don't want: The case for an imaginative analogue of desire. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (9):1-17.   (Google | More links | Edit)
Abstract: You’re imagining, in the course of a different game of make-believe, that you’re a bank robber. You don’t believe that you’re a bank robber. You are moved to point your finger, gun-wise, at the person pretending to be the bank teller and say, “Stick ‘em up! This is a robbery!”
Egan, Andy (online). Imagination, delusion, and self-deception.   (Google | Edit)
Abstract: Subjects with delusions profess to believe some extremely peculiar things. Patients with Capgras delusion sincerely assert that, for example, their spouses have been replaced by impostors. Patients with Cotard’s delusion sincerely assert that they are dead. Many philosophers and psychologists are hesitant to say that delusional subjects genuinely believe the contents of their delusions.2 One way to reinterpret delusional subjects is to say that we’ve misidentified the content of the problematic belief. So for example, rather than believing that his wife is has been replaced by an impostor, we might say that the victim of Capgras delusion believes that it is, in some respects, as if his wife has been replaced by an impostor. Another is to say that we’ve misidentified the attitude that the delusional subject bears to the content of their delusion. So for example, Gregory Currie and co-authors have suggested that rather than believing that his wife has been replaced by an impostor, we should say that the victim of Capgras delusion merely imagines that his wife has been replaced by an impostor.3
Joyce, P. (2003). Imagining experiences correctly. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (3):361-370.   (Google | More links | Edit)