Vol. 44 Núm. 2 (2024)
Artículos

¿Cómo es estar en un estado de percepción pura?

PDF (English)
  • Sergio Cermeño-Aínsa
Sergio Cermeño-Aínsa
Departamento de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, España.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e1042

Publicado 2024-11-08

Palabras clave

  • Estados perceptivos puros,
  • Contenido no conceptual,
  • Formato icónico,
  • Fenoménicamente peculiar
  • Pure Perceptual States,
  • Nonconceptual Content,
  • Iconic Format,
  • Phenomenally Peculiar
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Resumen

La idea de percepción pura (percepción sin influencia cognitiva) es central para la ciencia y la filosofía de la percepción. Para muchos, estar en un estado perceptivo puro es estar en un estado cuyo contenido no es conceptual, cuyo formato es icónico y cuya fenomenología es única. Este artículo explora esta posibilidad y encuentra que la idea de percepción pura, al menos cuando se define en estos términos, es insostenible. Además de importantes preocupaciones específicas derivadas de las propiedades que caracterizan estos estados, no he encontrado bases empíricas que indiquen la posibilidad de individualizar estos estados: ni mirar dentro de uno mismo (introspección), ni mirar dentro de los demás (psicología), ni mirar dentro del cerebro (neuroanatomía), sugiere la existencia de estados mentales perceptivos puros.

PDF (English)

Citas

  1. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21(1), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356283
  2. Bar, M., & Bubic, A. (2013). Top-down effects in visual perception. In K. N. Ochsner & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 1: Core Topics (pp. 60-73). Oxford Library of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199988693.013.0004
  3. Beck, J. (2012). The generality constraint and the structure of thought. Mind, 121(483), 563-600. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzs077
  4. Beck, J. (2018). Marking the perception-cognition boundary: The criterion of stimulus-dependence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(2), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2017.1329329
  5. Bentin, S., Golland, Y., Flevaris, A., Robertson, L. C., & Moscovitch, M. (2006). Processing the trees and the forest during initial stages of face perception: Electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(8), 1406-1421. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1406
  6. Block, N. (2014). Seeing-as in the light of vision science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(3), 560-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12135
  7. Block N. (2016). Tweaking the concepts of perception and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e232. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15002733
  8. Brewer, B. (1999). Perception and reason. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199250456.001.0001
  9. Brewer, B. (2006). Perception and content. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00220.x
  10. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581405.001.0001
  11. Burge, T. (2014). Reply to Block: Adaptation and the upper border of perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(3), 573-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12136
  12. Burge T. (2018). Iconic representation: Maps, pictures, and perception. In S. Wuppuluri & F. Doria (Eds), The map and the territory (pp. 79-100). The Frontiers Collection. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72478-2_5
  13. Caddigan, E., Choo, H., Fei-Fei, L., & Beck, D. M. (2017). Categorization influences detection: A perceptual advantage for representative exemplars of natural scene categories. Journal of Vision, 17(1), 21, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.1.21
  14. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001
  15. Carvalho, M., Justo, J., Gratier, M., & Silva, H. (2018). The impact of maternal voice on the fetus: A systematic review. Current Women´s Health Reviews, 15(1), 196-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573404814666181026094419
  16. Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2021). Mental imagery: Pulling the plug on perceptualism. Philosophical Studies, 178, 3847-3868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01628-x
  17. Cermeño-Aínsa, S. (2020). The cognitive penetrability of perception: A blocked debate and a tentative solution. Consciousness and cognition, 77, 102838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102838
  18. Cermeño-Aínsa, S. (2021). Is perception stimulus-dependent? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(3), 735-754. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s13164-021-00558-1
  19. Crane, T. (1992). The nonconceptual content of experience. In T. Crane (Ed.), The contents of experience: Essays on perception (pp. 136-157). Cambridge University Press.
  20. Crouzet, S. M., Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2010). Fast saccades toward faces: Face detection in just 100 ms. Journal of Vision, 10(4), 16, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.4.16
  21. Davidson, D. (1982). Rational animals. Dialectica, 36(4), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1982.tb01546.x
  22. Davidson, D. (1999). The emergence of thought. Erkenntnis, 51(1), 7-17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20012936
  23. de Gelder, B., & Rouw, R. (2000). Configural face processes in acquired and developmental prosopagnosia: Evidence for two separate face systems? Neuroreport, 11(14), 3145-3150. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200009280-00021
  24. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. The MIT Press.
  25. Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences shape visual perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412463693
  26. Ellis, G. F. R. (2019). Top-down effects in the brain. Physics of Life Reviews, 31, 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.05.006
  27. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford University Press.
  28. Farkas, K. (2006). Indiscriminability and the sameness of appearance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106(1), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2006.00145.x
  29. Felleman, D.J., & Van Essen, D.C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/1.1.1-a
  30. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485092
  31. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 39, 1-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15000965
  32. Fish, W. J. (2008). Disjunctivism, indistinguishability and the nature of hallucination. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, and knowledge (pp. 144-167). Oxford University Press.
  33. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. The MIT Press.
  34. Fodor, J. A. (2007). The revenge of the given. In B. McLaughlin & J. Cohen (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of mind (pp. 105-116). Blackwell.
  35. Gervain, J. (2018). The role of prenatal experience in language development. Current Opinion in Behavioural Science, 21, 62-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.02.004
  36. Gilbert, C. D., & Li, W. (2013). Top-down influences on visual processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 350-363. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3476
  37. Glock, H. J. (2000). Animals, thoughts, and concepts. Synthese, 123, 35-64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005295521736
  38. Green, E. J., & Quilty-Dunn, J. (2021). What is an object file? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 665-699. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx055
  39. Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: As soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychological Science, 16(2), 152-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00796.x
  40. Groen, I. I. A., Silson, E. H., & Baker, C. I. (2017). Contributions of low- and high-level properties to neural processing of visual scenes in the human brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 372, 20160102. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0102
  41. Hansen, T., Olkkonen, M., Walter, S., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2006). Memory modulates color appearance. Nature Neuroscience, 9(11), 1367-1368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1794
  42. Hanson, R. H. (1958). Observation and explanation: A guide to philosophy of science. Cambridge University Press.
  43. Harel, A., Groen, I. I., Kravitz, D. J., Deouell, L. Y., & Baker, C. I. (2016). The temporal dynamics of scene processing: A multifaceted EEG investigation. eNeuro, 3(5). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0139-16.2016
  44. Harnad, S. (2005). To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In C. Lefebvre & H. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 20-43). Elsevier.
  45. Hume, D. (1967). A treatise of human nature. Oxford University Press.
  46. Jastrzębowska, M. A., Chicherov, V., Draganski, B., & Herzog, M. H. (2021). Unraveling brain interactions in vision: The example of crowding. NeuroImage, 240, 118390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118390
  47. Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2006). Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements: Visual processing speed revisited. Vision Research, 46(11), 1762-1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.002
  48. Kosslyn, S. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000130
  49. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
  50. Levin, D. T., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 501-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.501
  51. Lewis, M. B., & Edmonds, A. J. (2003). Face detection: Mapping human performance. Perception, 32(8), 903-920. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5007
  52. Löhr, G. (2020). Concepts and categorization: Do philosophers and psychologists theorize about different things? Synthese, 197, 2171-2191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1798-4
  53. Lupyan, G. (2015). Cognitive penetrability of perception in the age of prediction: Predictive systems are penetrable systems. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(4), 547-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0253-4
  54. Maguire, J. F., & Howe, P. D. L. (2016). Failure to detect meaning in RSVP at 27 ms per picture. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 78(5), 1405-1413. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1096-5
  55. Mandelbaum, E. (2018). Seeing and conceptualizing: Modularity and the shallow contents of perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12368
  56. Markov, N. T., Ercsey-Ravasz, M., Van Essen, D. C., Knoblauch, K., Toroczkai, Z., & Kennedy, H. (2013). Cortical high-density counter stream architectures. Science, 342, 1238406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238406
  57. Martin, M. G. F. (2002). The transparency of experience. Mind and Language, 17(4), 376-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00205
  58. Masrour, F., Nirshberg, G., Schon, M., Leardi, J., & Barrett, E. (2015). Revisiting the empirical case against perceptual modularity. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1676. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2015.01676
  59. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Harvard University Press.
  60. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. Basic Books.
  61. Nanay, B. (2015). Perceptual content and the content of mental imagery. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 172(7), 1723-1736. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24704178
  62. Newen, A., & Bartels, A. (2007). Animal minds and the possession of concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 20(3), 283-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080701358096
  63. O’Callaghan, C., Kveraga, K., Shine, J. M., Adams, R. B., & Bar, M. (2016). Convergent evidence for top-down effects from the “predictive brain”. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 39, e254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002599
  64. Otsuka, Y. (2014). Face recognition in infants: A review of behavioural and near-infrared stereoscopic studies. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(1), 76-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12024
  65. Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. The MIT Press.
  66. Peacocke, C. (2001). Does perception have a nonconceptual content? Journal of Philosophy, 98(5), 239-264. https://doi.org/10.2307/2678383
  67. Pearson, J., Naselaris, T., Holmes, E. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). Mental imagery: Functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 590-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.003
  68. Perky, C. W. (1910). An experimental study of imagination. The American Journal of Psychology, 21(3), 422-452. https://doi.org/10.2307/1413350
  69. Peters, A. (2002). Examining neocortical circuits: Some background and facts. Journal of Neurocytology, 31, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157522651
  70. Phillips, B. (2019). The shifting border between perception and cognition. Noûs, 53(2), 316-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12218
  71. Pitt, D. (2004). The phenomenology of cognition: Or what is it like to think that P? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00382.x
  72. Potter, M. C., Wyble, B., Hagmann, C. E., & McCourt, E. (2014). Detecting meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per picture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(2), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0605-z
  73. Provasi, J., Anderson, D. I., & Barbu-Roth, M. (2014). Rhythm perception, production, and synchronization during the perinatal period. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01048
  74. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002022
  75. Quilty-Dunn, J. (2016). Iconicity and the format of perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(3/4), 255-263.
  76. Quilty-Dunn, J. (2017). Syntax and semantics of perceptual representation. Ph.D. dissertation. CUNY Academic Works.
  77. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2261
  78. Quilty-Dunn, J. (2020). Perceptual pluralism. Noûs, 54(4), 807-838. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12285
  79. Ramkumar, P., Hansen, B. C., Pannasch, S., & Loschky, L. C. (2016). Visual information representation and rapid scene categorization are simultaneous across cortex: An MEG study. NeuroImage, 134, 295-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.027
  80. Rolfs, M., Dambacher, M., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Current Biology, 23(3), 250-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017
  81. Rolfs, M., & Dambacher, M. (2016). What draws the line between perception and cognition? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15002617
  82. Schellenberg, S. (2011). Perceptual content defended. Noûs, 45(4), 714-750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00791.x
  83. Scholl, B. J., & Gao, T. (2013). Perceiving animacy and intentionality: Visual processing or higher-level judgment? In M. D. Rutherford & V. A. Kuhlmeier (Eds.), Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention (pp. 197-229). The MIT Press.
  84. Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2015). The evolution of concepts about agents: Or, what do animals recognize when they recognize an individual? In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 57-76). The MIT Press.
  85. Siegel, S. (2004). Indiscriminability and the phenomenal. Philosophical Studies, 120, 90-112. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000033752.70521.13
  86. Siegel, S. (2008). The epistemic conception of hallucination. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, and knowledge (pp. 205-224). Oxford University Press.
  87. Soteriou, M. (2020). The disjunctive theory of perception. In Ed. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/perception-disjunctive/
  88. Speaks, J., (2005). Is there a problem about nonconceptual content? Philosophical Review, 114(3), 359-398. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-114-3-359
  89. Sturgeon, S. (2006). Reflective disjunctivism. Supplement to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 80(1), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2006.00142.x
  90. Uyar, F., Shomstein, S., Greenberg, A. S., & Behrmann, M. (2016). Retinotopic information interacts with category selectivity in human ventral cortex. Neuropsychologia 92, 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.05.022
  91. Valenti, J. J., & Firestone, C. (2019). Finding the “odd one out”: Memory color effects and the logic of appearance. Cognition, 191, 103934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.003
  92. Veniero, D., Gross, J., Morand, S., Duecker, F., Sack, A. T., & Thut, G. (2021). Top-down control of visual cortex by the frontal eye fields through oscillatory realignment. Nature Communications, 12, 1757. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21979-7
  93. Vetter, P., & Newen, A. (2014). Varieties of cognitive penetration in visual perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.007
  94. Webster, M. A., & MacLeod, D. I. (2011). Visual adaptation and face perception. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological sciences, 366, 1702-1725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0360