Research
Publications
Articles and Book Chapters
Byrne, A., & Green, E.J. (forthcoming). "Whither Naive Realism? - II." To appear in O. Beck & F. Masrour (eds.), The Relational View of Perception: New Essays. Routledge.
Abstract: In a companion paper (Byrne and Green 2023) we disentangled the main characterizations of naïve realism and argued that illusions provide the best proving ground for naïve realism and its main rival, representationalism. According to naïve realism, illusions never involve perceptual error. We assessed two leading attempts to explain apparent perceptual error away, from William Fish and Bill Brewer, and concluded that they fail. This paper considers another prominent attempt, from Craig French and Ian Phillips, and also sketches the case for representationalism.
Abstract: A prominent view holds that perception and memory are distinguished at least partly by their temporal orientation: Perception functions to represent the present, while memory functions to represent the past. Call this view perceptual presentism. This chapter critically examines perceptual presentism in light of contemporary perception science. I adduce evidence for three forms of perceptual sensitivity to the past: (i) shaping perception by past stimulus exposure, (ii) recruitment of mnemonic representations in perceptual processing, and (iii) perceptual representation of present objects as possessing past properties. I argue that forms (i) and (ii) are consistent with perceptual presentism, while form (iii) poses a genuine threat to the view. While the empirical case for form (iii) remains inconclusive, I suggest that the most serious challenges to perceptual presentism derive from representations that integrate mnemonic and present-tensed elements in the performance of canonical perceptual functions, such as perceiving object continuity over time.
Abstract: Christopher Hill’s Perceptual experience is a must-read for philosophers of mind and cognitive science. Here I consider Hill’s representationalist account of spatial perception. I distinguish two theses defended in the book. The first is that perceptual experience does not represent the enduring, intrinsic properties of objects, such as intrinsic shape or size. The second is that perceptual experience does represent certain viewpoint-dependent properties of objects—namely, Thouless properties. I argue that Hill’s arguments do not establish the first thesis, and then I raise questions about the Thouless-property view and its role in Hill’s defense of representationalism.
Abstract: Different authors offer subtly different characterizations of naïve realism. We disentangle the main ones and argue that illusions provide the best proving ground for naïve realism and its main rival, representationalism. According to naïve realism, illusions never involve perceptual error. We assess two leading attempts to explain apparent perceptual error away, from William Fish and Bill Brewer, and conclude that they fail. Another leading attempt is assessed in a companion paper, which also sketches an alternative representational account.
Abstract: The ability to perceive the shapes of things as enduring through changes in how they stimulate our sense organs is vital to our sense of stability in the world. But what sort of capacity is shape constancy, and how is it reflected in perceptual experience? This paper defends a pluralist account of shape constancy: There are multiple kinds of shape constancy centered on geometrical properties at various levels of abstraction, and properties at these various levels feature in the content of perceptual experience, governing patterns of apparent shape similarity. I propose that the varieties of shape constancy are subserved by the syntactic complexity of perceptual shape representations. By assigning discrete constituents to various abstract shape parameters, these representations attune us to the preservation of certain abstract shape properties through changes in more determinate shape properties. Finally, I draw broader lessons concerning the nature and function of perceptual constancy.
Abstract: This chapter examines how our sense modalities interact in the perception of persistence. I concentrate on two questions. The first concerns perceptual processing: Do perceptual computations of object persistence ever integrate and compute over representations from more than one modality? I argue that this question should be answered affirmatively. The second question concerns perceptual experience: Do experiences of object persistence ever exhibit constitutively multisensory phenomenal character, or is the phenomenology of object persistence always uniquely associated with just one modality? I argue that the available evidence underdetermines the answer to this question, but I suggest ways it might be empirically resolved.
Abstract: This chapter juxtaposes format-based and architectural approaches to the perception-cognition border. I introduce my preferred architectural account, the dimension restriction hypothesis (DRH). I defend DRH against recent objections from Ned Block. I then pose challenges to Block's format-based account.
Abstract: Perceptual constancy has played a significant role in philosophy of perception. It figures in debates about direct realism, color ontology, and the minimal conditions for perceptual representation. Despite this, there is no general consensus about what constancy is. I argue that an adequate account of constancy must distinguish it from three distinct phenomena: mere sensory stability through proximal change, perceptual categorization of a distal dimension, and stability through irrelevant proximal change. Standard characterizations of constancy fall short in one or more of these respects. I develop an account of constancy that overcomes these problems. The account has two parts: an analysis of constancy mechanisms, and an analysis of the conditions under which a constancy capacity is exercised. I then employ this account to evaluate whether constancy is a necessary condition for perceptual representation, as some have conjectured. I argue that explanatory practice in perceptual psychology fails to support this view. Rather, it fits better with the weaker principle that representation requires specific tracking of a distal dimension.
Abstract: Perceptual representations pick out individuals and attribute properties to them. This paper considers the role of perceptual attribution in determining or guiding perceptual reference to objects. We consider three extant models of the relation between perceptual attribution and perceptual reference–all attribution guides reference, no attribution guides reference, or a privileged subset of attributions guides reference–and argue that empirical evidence undermines all three. We then defend a flexible-attributives model, on which the range of perceptual attributives used to guide reference shifts adaptively with context. This model underscores the remarkable and dynamic intelligence of our perceptual capacities. We elucidate implications of the model for the boundary between perception and propositional thought.
Green, E.J. (2022). "The Puzzle of Cross-Modal Shape Experience." Noûs, 56(4), 867-896.
Abstract: The puzzle of cross-modal shape experience is the puzzle of reconciling the apparent differences between our visual and haptic experiences of shape with their apparent similarities. This paper proposes that we can resolve the cross-modal puzzle by reflecting on another puzzle. The puzzle of perspectival character challenges us to reconcile the variability of shape experience through shifts in perspective with its constancy. An attractive approach to the latter puzzle holds that shape experience is complex, involving both perspectival aspects and constant aspects. I argue here that parallel distinctions between perspectival and constant aspects of shape experience arise in sight and touch, and that perspectival aspects are modality-specific while at least some constant aspects are constitutively multisensory. I then address a powerful challenge to the idea that aspects of spatial phenomenology are shared cross-modally.
Green, E.J. (2022). "Representing Shape in Sight and Touch." Mind & Language, 37(4), 694-714.
Abstract: We represent shape in both sight and touch, but how do these abilities relate to one another? This issue has been discussed in the context of Molyneux’s question of whether someone born blind could, upon being granted sight, identify shapes visually. Some have suggested that we might look to real-world cases of sight restoration to illuminate the relation between visual and tactual shape representations. Here I argue that newly sighted perceivers should not be relied on in this way because they are unlikely to form the kinds of shape representations responsible for cross-modal recognition in normally sighted perceivers. I then argue that the available evidence makes a compelling case for the type identity view, on which the visual and tactual representations responsible for cross-modal recognition are type-identical.
Abstract: Cognitive scientists have long known that the modalities interact during perceptual processing. Cross-modal illusions like the ventriloquism effect show that the course of processing in one modality can alter the course of processing in another. But how do the modalities interact in the specific domain of object perception? This paper distinguishes and analyzes two kinds of multisensory interaction in object perception. First, the modalities may bind features to a single object or event. Second, the modalities may cooperate when differentiating an object or event from its surroundings. I critically evaluate evidence for various forms of multisensory binding. I then consider the case for multisensory differentiation. I argue that existing evidence for multisensory differentiation is inconclusive. I highlight ways that the issue might be empirically resolved.
Abstract: The notion of an object file figures prominently in recent work in philosophy and cognitive science. Object files play a role in theories of singular reference, object individuation, perceptual memory, and the development of cognitive capacities. However, the philosophical literature lacks a detailed, empirically informed theory of object files. In this paper, we articulate and defend the multiple-slots view, which specifies both the format and architecture of object files. We argue that object files represent in a non-iconic, propositional format that incorporates discrete symbols for separate features. Moreover, we argue that features of separate categories (such as color, shape, and orientation) are stored in separate memory slots within an object files. We supplement this view with a computational framework that characterizes how information about objects is stored and retrieved.
Abstract: A venerable view holds that a border between perception and cognition is built into our cognitive architecture, and that this imposes limits on the way information can flow between them. While the deliverances of perception are freely available for use in reasoning and inference, there are strict constraints on information flow in the opposite direction. Despite its plausibility, this approach to the perception-cognition border has faced criticism in recent years. This paper develops an updated version of the architectural approach, which I call the dimension restriction hypothesis (DRH). According to DRH, perceptual processes are constrained to compute over a bounded range of dimensions, while cognitive processes are not. This view allows that perception is cognitively penetrable, but places strict limits on the varieties of penetration that can occur. I argue that DRH enjoys both theoretical and empirical support. I also defend the view against several objections.
Abstract: Spatial functionalism is the view that spatial concepts, as well as spatial experiences, represent whatever worldly entities play a certain functional role. We use both a priori and empirical considerations, drawing results from contemporary vision science revealing systematic visual illusion, to argue against the most prominent form of spatial functionalism: causal phenomenal spatial functionalism, on which spatial concepts refer to whatever properties normally cause certain spatial experiences (Chalmers 2019). We examine the prospects for other versions of spatial functionalism and their ability to deliver the result that allegedly skeptical scenarios like the Matrix and brains-in-vats are not, in the end, skeptical scenarios after all. While the causal-phenomenal theory adopted by Chalmers does not succeed, we argue that there is room for other versions of spatial functionalism that both comport with contemporary vision science and deliver the surprising anti-skeptical conclusion that inhabitants of certain Matrix scenarios are in fact less deceived than their real-world counterparts, i.e. us.
Abstract: Objects are central in visual, auditory, and tactual perception. But what counts as a perceptual object? I address this question via a structural unity schema, which specifies how a collection of parts must be arranged to compose an object for perception. On the theory I propose, perceptual objects are composed of parts that participate in causally sustained regularities. I argue that this theory falls out of a compelling account of the function of object perception, and illustrate its applications to multisensory perception. I also argue that the account avoids problems faced by standard views of visual and auditory objects.
Green, E.J. (2019). "On the Perception of Structure." Noûs, 53(3), 564-592.
Abstract: Many of the objects that we perceive have an important characteristic: When they move, they change shape. For instance, when you watch a person walk across a room, her body constantly deforms. I suggest that we exercise a type of perceptual constancy in response to changes of this sort, which I call structure constancy. In this paper I offer an account of structure constancy. I introduce the notion of compositional structure, and propose that structure constancy involves perceptually representing an object as retaining its compositional structure over time. I argue that compositional structure is represented in visual phenomenology, and I also assemble empirical evidence in support of the claim that compositional structure is recovered by the visual system. Finally, I draw out consequences of this account. I argue that structure constancy has implications for the predictive capacities of perception, and that the phenomenon places important constraints on viable accounts of both the format and reference frame of visual experience.
Abstract: When we perceive an object, we perceive the object from a perspective. As a consequence of the perspectival nature of perception, when we perceive, say, a circular coin from different angles, there is a respect in which the coin looks circular throughout, but also a respect in which the coin's appearance changes. More generally, perception of shape and size properties has both a constant aspect -- an aspect that remains stable across changes in perspective -- and a perspectival aspect -- an aspect that changes depending on one's perspective on the object. How should we account for the perspectival aspect of spatial perception? We present a framework within which to discuss the perspectival aspect of perception and put forward three desiderata that any account of the perspectival aspect of perception should satisfy. We discuss views on which the perspectival aspect of perception is analyzed in terms of constitutively mind-dependent appearance properties as well as views on which the perspectival aspect of perception is analyzed in terms of representations of mind-independent perspectival properties.
Green, E.J. (2018). "What Do Object Files Pick Out?" Philosophy of Science, 85(2), 177-200.
Abstract: Many authors have posited an “object file” system, which underlies perceptual selection and tracking of objects. Several have proposed that this system internalizes principles specifying what counts as an object, and relies on them during tracking. Here I consider a popular view on which the object file system is tuned to entities that satisfy principles of three-dimensionality, cohesion, and boundedness. I argue that the evidence gathered in support of this view is consistent with a more permissive view on which object files select and track according to well-known perceptual organization criteria. Further evidence supplies positive support for the permissive view.
Abstract: I consider the issue of whether perceptual content is “rich” or “thin,” using the lens of psychosemantics. As a case study, I examine Neander’s (2017) recent psychosemantic theory of perceptual representations, which supports a thin view of perceptual content. I argue that the view faces difficulties, and that these difficulties trace directly to the component that makes it thin-friendly. I show that this sort of issue is not unique to Neander’s theory—it also arises for Dretske’s and Fodor’s accounts. I then articulate a more general challenge for any psychosemantic theorist seeking to retain a systematically thin view of perceptual content. I conclude that a viable psychosemantics of perception is unlikely to support the thin view.
Green, E.J. (2017). "Attentive Visual Reference." Mind & Language, 32(1), 3-38.
Abstract: Many have held that when a person visually attends to an object, her visual system deploys a representation that designates the object. Call the referential link between such representations and the objects they designate attentive visual reference. In this paper I offer an account of attentive visual reference. I argue that the object representations deployed in visual attention—which I call attentive visual object representations (AVORs)—refer directly, and are akin to indexicals. Then I turn to the issue of how the reference of an AVOR is determined relative to a context. After raising problems for existing accounts, I propose a mechanism of reference determination that is both causal and descriptive: For an AVOR to refer to a particular object, the object must appropriately cause the deployment of the AVOR, and the AVOR must be associated with descriptive information about some of the object’s geometrical and mereological properties.
Abstract: This article develops a view of shape representation both in visual experience and in subpersonal visual processing. The view is that, in both cases, shape is represented in a layered manner: An object is represented as having multiple shape properties, and these properties have varying degrees of abstraction. I argue that this view is supported both by the facts about visual phenomenology and by a large collection of evidence in perceptual psychology. Such evidence is provided by studies of shape discriminability, apparent motion, multiple-object tracking, and structure-from-motion. Recent neuroscientific work has also corroborated this psychophysical evidence. Finally, I draw out implications of the layered view for processes of concept acquisition.
Abstract: Some philosophers have suggested that certain shifts in perceptual organization are counterexamples to representationalism about phenomenal character. Representationalism about phenomenal character is, roughly, the view that there can be no difference in the phenomenal character of experience without a difference in the representational content of experience. In this paper, I examine three of these alleged counterexamples: the dot array (Peacocke 1983), the intersecting lines (Speaks 2010), and the 3 x 3 grid (Nickel 2007). I identify the two features of their phenomenology that call for explanation: grouping and prominence. I then argue that representationalists can adequately account for both of these features. I also critique some previous treatments of grouping and prominence.
Commentary on Donald D. Hoffman, Manish Singh, and Chetan Prakash's "The Interface Theory of Perception."
Reviews and Other Writing
Abstract: Quilty-Dunn et al.’s wide-ranging defense of LoT argues that vision traffics in abstract, structured representational formats. We agree: Vision, like language, is compositional—just as words compose into phrases, many visual representations contain discrete constituents that combine in systematic ways. Here, we amass evidence extending this proposal, and explore its implications for how vision interfaces with the rest of the mind.
Abstract: “What is the structure of thought?” is as central a question as any in cognitive science. A classic answer to this question has appealed to a Language of Thought (LoT). We point to emerging research from disparate branches of the field that supports the LoT hypothesis, but also uncovers diversity in LoTs across cognitive systems, stages of development, and species. Our letter formulates open research questions for cognitive science concerning the varieties of rules and representations that underwrite various LoT-based systems and how these variations can help researchers taxonomize cognitive systems.
Green, E.J. (2015). "Review of Uriah Kriegel's Sources of Intentionality." Mind, 124(493), 366-370.
Published Abstracts