The Neuroscientific Case for a Representative Theory of Perception

Abstract

It has been urged repeatedly over the last two decades that empirical findings in neuroscience and psychology provide compelling reasons for endorsing a representative theory of perception. Richard L. Gregory and John R. Smythies are perhaps the best-known advocates of this view. When it comes to vision, in particular, scientists of this persuasion think that the supposed alternative, ‘direct realism’, is hopelessly naïve, and they conclude that, as Francis Crick puts it, ‘What you see is not what is really there; it is what your brain believes is there’ (Crick, 1994, p. 31). We will take a critical look at some of these empirical findings, and discuss the extent to which they support the more sweeping philosophical claims scientists have drawn from them, in particular the advocacy of representative theories of perception.