感性的抽象

Noûs Pub Date : 2025-06-30 DOI:10.1111/nous.70001
Mason Westfall, E. J. Green
{"title":"感性的抽象","authors":"Mason Westfall, E. J. Green","doi":"10.1111/nous.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Perception puts us in touch with highly determinate properties of objects, such as fine‐grained color shades and detailed surface shapes. However, most of our immediate perceptual judgments concern more abstract properties, such as the property of being a dog, or of being red <jats:italic>simpliciter</jats:italic>. So, how does perception attune us to abstract properties despite its evident determinacy? This paper argues that perception can be sensitive to abstract properties in multiple, fundamentally different ways. We articulate a distinction between <jats:italic>implicit</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>explicit</jats:italic> perceptual abstraction and explore its ramifications for debates about the role of concepts in perception, the richness of perceptual content, and rationalist versus empiricist views of our innate representational repertoire. We also propose an empirical test for differentiating implicit from explicit perceptual abstraction. Finally, we outline a version of Conceptualism built on the implicit/explicit distinction, on which explicit perceptual abstraction involves the use of concepts, while implicit abstraction can occur non‐conceptually. We argue that this form of Conceptualism is both empirically viable and unscathed by prominent Non‐Conceptualist arguments.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptual abstraction\",\"authors\":\"Mason Westfall, E. J. Green\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nous.70001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Perception puts us in touch with highly determinate properties of objects, such as fine‐grained color shades and detailed surface shapes. However, most of our immediate perceptual judgments concern more abstract properties, such as the property of being a dog, or of being red <jats:italic>simpliciter</jats:italic>. So, how does perception attune us to abstract properties despite its evident determinacy? This paper argues that perception can be sensitive to abstract properties in multiple, fundamentally different ways. We articulate a distinction between <jats:italic>implicit</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>explicit</jats:italic> perceptual abstraction and explore its ramifications for debates about the role of concepts in perception, the richness of perceptual content, and rationalist versus empiricist views of our innate representational repertoire. We also propose an empirical test for differentiating implicit from explicit perceptual abstraction. Finally, we outline a version of Conceptualism built on the implicit/explicit distinction, on which explicit perceptual abstraction involves the use of concepts, while implicit abstraction can occur non‐conceptually. We argue that this form of Conceptualism is both empirically viable and unscathed by prominent Non‐Conceptualist arguments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Noûs\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Noûs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Noûs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

感知使我们接触到物体高度确定的特性,如细粒度的颜色深浅和细节的表面形状。然而,我们的大多数直接感知判断都涉及到更抽象的属性,比如“是狗”的属性,或者“是更简单的人”的属性。那么,知觉是如何使我们适应抽象属性的,尽管它具有明显的确定性?本文认为,感知可以通过多种根本不同的方式对抽象属性敏感。我们阐明了内隐和外显感知抽象之间的区别,并探讨了关于概念在感知中的作用、感知内容的丰富性以及我们固有表征库的理性主义与经验主义观点的争论。我们还提出了一个区分内隐和外显知觉抽象的经验检验。最后,我们概述了一个基于内隐/外显区分的概念主义版本,其中外显知觉抽象涉及概念的使用,而内隐抽象可以发生在非概念上。我们认为,这种形式的概念主义在经验上是可行的,并且没有受到突出的非概念主义论点的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perceptual abstraction
Perception puts us in touch with highly determinate properties of objects, such as fine‐grained color shades and detailed surface shapes. However, most of our immediate perceptual judgments concern more abstract properties, such as the property of being a dog, or of being red simpliciter. So, how does perception attune us to abstract properties despite its evident determinacy? This paper argues that perception can be sensitive to abstract properties in multiple, fundamentally different ways. We articulate a distinction between implicit and explicit perceptual abstraction and explore its ramifications for debates about the role of concepts in perception, the richness of perceptual content, and rationalist versus empiricist views of our innate representational repertoire. We also propose an empirical test for differentiating implicit from explicit perceptual abstraction. Finally, we outline a version of Conceptualism built on the implicit/explicit distinction, on which explicit perceptual abstraction involves the use of concepts, while implicit abstraction can occur non‐conceptually. We argue that this form of Conceptualism is both empirically viable and unscathed by prominent Non‐Conceptualist arguments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信