{"title":"如何思考更高层次的感性内容","authors":"Daniel C. Burnston","doi":"10.1111/mila.12446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard assumption for what perception must do in order to represent a “higher level” content—say tiger— is that it must represent the kind as such . I argue that this “as such condition” is not constitutive of what it means for a content to be “higher-level”, and that embracing it produces a range of unfortunate dialectical consequences. After offering this critique, I give an alternative construal, the “extended perceptual space” view of higher-level contents. This view captures the phenomena targeted by the “higher-level content” thesis, is empirically supported, and avoids the negative dialectical consequences of the as such condition.","PeriodicalId":110770,"journal":{"name":"Mind & Language","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to think about higher‐level perceptual contents\",\"authors\":\"Daniel C. Burnston\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mila.12446\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standard assumption for what perception must do in order to represent a “higher level” content—say tiger— is that it must represent the kind as such . I argue that this “as such condition” is not constitutive of what it means for a content to be “higher-level”, and that embracing it produces a range of unfortunate dialectical consequences. After offering this critique, I give an alternative construal, the “extended perceptual space” view of higher-level contents. This view captures the phenomena targeted by the “higher-level content” thesis, is empirically supported, and avoids the negative dialectical consequences of the as such condition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":110770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mind & Language\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mind & Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12446\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mind & Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12446","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
How to think about higher‐level perceptual contents
The standard assumption for what perception must do in order to represent a “higher level” content—say tiger— is that it must represent the kind as such . I argue that this “as such condition” is not constitutive of what it means for a content to be “higher-level”, and that embracing it produces a range of unfortunate dialectical consequences. After offering this critique, I give an alternative construal, the “extended perceptual space” view of higher-level contents. This view captures the phenomena targeted by the “higher-level content” thesis, is empirically supported, and avoids the negative dialectical consequences of the as such condition.