Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–28 | Cite as

Are there epistemic conditions necessary for demonstrative thought?

  • Michael BarkasiEmail author
Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Starting with Gareth Evans, there’s an important tradition of theorizing about perception-based demonstrative thought which assigns necessary epistemic conditions to it. Its core idea is that demonstrative reference in thought is grounded in information links, understood as links which carry reliable information about their targets and which a subject exploits for demonstrative reference by tokening the mental files fed by these links. Perception, on these views, is not fundamental to perception-based demonstrative thought but is only the information link exploited in these cases. Evans himself assigns a further epistemic condition (knowledge of a target’s location in public space), while more recently Imogen Dickie has expanded the reliability requirement into a more complex account centered around justification. In this paper I synthesize three central proponents of this approach (Evans, Recanati, and Dickie) and show that the epistemic conditions they place on perception-based demonstrative thought are not actually required. My argument gives two examples in which there is perceptual contact with an object but this perceptual contact fails to do the epistemic work in question. The first case is stimulus-incorporating dream experiences, the second involves multimodal binding failures. I argue that this perceptual contact still affords demonstrative thought in these cases.

Keywords

Demonstrative thought Justification Information links Gareth Evans Dreams Multimodal binding Mental files 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper owes a great deal to the two anonymous referees from this journal, whose sharp comments greatly improved both the framing of this paper and its central arguments. This paper grew out of a draft of a much different paper, which itself started as chapter 3 of my dissertation. In that long process I benefited greatly from input by Casey O’Callaghan, Charles Siewert, Nico Orlandi, Indrek Reiland, Richard Grandy, Dan Burnston, Alex Morgan, Mohan Matthen, and several other sets of referees. Casey, Indrek, Alex, and Mohan deserve special mention, as they provided generous line-by-line comments on earlier drafts and spent substantial time discussing with me fundamental issues which shaped this paper into its current form. This paper was written during my postdoc under Mohan Matthen at the University of Toronto. I thank Mohan and the university for their generous support.

References

  1. Allport, A. (2011). Attention and integration. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical & psychological essays (pp. 24–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (2010). Getting a thing into a thought. In R. Jeshion (Ed.), New essays on singular thought (pp. 39–63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkasi, M. (2019). The role of experience in demonstrative thought. Mind and Language.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12228.
  4. Blumberg, M. S. (2010). Beyond dreams: Do sleep-related movements contribute to brain development? Frontiers in Neurology, 1(140), 1–10.Google Scholar
  5. Blumberg, M. S. (2015). Developing sensorimotor systems in our sleep. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumberg, M. S., Coleman, C. M., Gerth, A. I., & McMurray, B. (2013). Spatiotemporal structure of REM sleep twitching reveals developmental origins of motor synergies. Current Biology, 23(21), 2100–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. (2004). Reference as attention. Philosophical Studies, 120, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheyne, J. A. (2003). Sleep paralysis and the structure of waking-nightmare hallucinations. Dreaming, 13(3), 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2006). Attention & inscrutability: A commentary on John Campbell, “reference and consciousness” for the Pacific APA Meeting, Pasadena, California, 2004. Philosophical Studies, 127, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, A. (2012). Dreaming the whole cat: Generative models, predictive processing, and the enactivist conception of perceptual experience. Mind, 121(483), 753–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dement, W., & Wolpert, E. A. (1958). The relation of eye movements, body motility, and external stimuli to dream content. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(6), 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickie, I. (2010). We are acquainted with ordinary things. In R. Jeshion (Ed.), New essays on singular thought (pp. 213–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickie, I. (2011). Visual attention fixes demonstrative reference by eliminating referential luck. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical & psychological essays (pp. 292–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dickie, I. (2015a). Fixing reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickie, I. (2015b). Perception and demonstratives. In M. Matthen (Ed.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception (pp. 833–852). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reasons in a world of causes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, G. (1982). Varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hobson, J. A. (2009). REM sleep and dreaming: Towards a theory of protoconsciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(11), 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobson, J. A., & Friston, K. J. (2014). Consciousness, dreams, and inference: The cartesian theatre revisted. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(1–2), 6–32.Google Scholar
  24. Hobson, J. A., Hong, C. C. H., & Friston, K. J. (2014). Virtual reality and consciousness inference in dreaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1133), 1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Hoff, H. (1929). Zusammenhang von Vestibularfunktion, Schlfstellung and Traumleben. European Neurology, 71(5–6), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoff, H., & Pötzl, O. (1937). Über die labyrinthären Beziehungen von Flugsensationen und Flugträumen. European Neurology, 97(4), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeshion, R. (2010). Singular thought: Acquaintance, semantic instrumentalism, and cognitivism. In R. Jeshion (Ed.), New essays on singular thought (pp. 105–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston, M. (2011). On a neglected epistemic virtue. Philosophical Issues, 21(1), 165–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. A. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leslie, K., & Ogilvie, R. (1996). Vestibular dreams: The effect of rocking on dream mentation. Dreaming, 6(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine, J. (2010). Demonstrative thought. Mind and Language, 25, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, M. G. F. (2002). Particular thoughts and singular thought. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Logic, thought, and language, royal institute of philosophy supplements (Vol. 51, pp. 173–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Matthen, M. (2005). Seeing, doing, and knowing: A philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matthen, M. (2012). Visual demonstratives. In A. Raftopoulos & P. Machamer (Eds.), Perception, realism and the problem of reference (pp. 43–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Millikan, R. G. (2012). Are there mental indexicals and demonstratives? Philosophical Perspectives, 26(1), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen, T. A. (1992). A self-observational study of spontaneous hypnagogic imagery using the upright napping procedure. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 11(4), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nielsen, T. A. (1993). Changes in the kinesthetic content of dreams following somatosensory stimulation of leg muscles during REM sleep. Dreaming, 3(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielsen, T. A., Ouellet, L., & Zadra, A. (1995). Pressure stimulation during REM sleep alters dream limb activity and body bizarreness. Sleep Research, 24, 134.Google Scholar
  41. O’Callaghan, C. (2007). Sounds: A philosophical theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Callaghan, C. (2015). The multisensory character of perception. Journal of Philosophy, 112(10), 551–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Callaghan, C. (2016). Objects for multisensory perception. Philosophical Studies, 173, 1269–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Callaghan, C. (2019). A multisensory philosophy of perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Peacocke, C. (1983). Sense and content: Experience, thought, and their relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2007). Things and places: How the mind connects with the world. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raftopoulos, A., & Müller, V. (2006). Nonconceptual demonstrative reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(2), 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Recanati, F. (2012). Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Russell, B. (1997/1912). The problems of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sauvageau, A., Nielsen, T. A., & Montplaisir, J. (1998). Effects of somatosensory stimulation on dream content in gymnasts and control participants: Evidence of vestibulomotor adaptation in REM sleep. Dreaming, 8(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schellenberg, S. (2019). Perceptual consciousness as a mental activity. Nous, 53(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siegel, S. (2006). How does visual phenomenology constrain object-seeing? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(3), 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siegel, S. (2010). The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Siewert, C. (1998). The significance of consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smithies, D. (2011). What is the role of consciousness in demonstrative thought? Journal of Philosophy, 108(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smithies, D. (2019). The epistemic role of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353, 1295–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Windt, J. M. (2018). Predictive brains, dreaming selves, sleeping bodies: How the analysis of dream movement can inform a theory of self- and world-simulation in dreams. Synthese, 195, 2577–2625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu, W. (2011). Attention as selection for action. In C. Mole, D. Smithies, & W. Wu (Eds.), Attention: Philosophical & psychological essays (pp. 97–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zmigrod, S., Spapé, M., & Hommel, B. (2009). Intermodal event files: Integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action. Psychological Research, 73(5), 674–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Network for Sensory Research, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Toronto MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations