Greg Detre
7/3/02
how carve up the senses? differentiate sight from touch, for e.g.
phenomenology (Block 1997)
perceive different external properties
different features of the ambient array being responded to
different organs (anatomy + (neuro)physiology)
Grice � resemblance allowing us to categorise (phenomenally)/differentiate the senses
can't attend to the visual experience itself, only the objects of visual experience
doesn't seem contingent that we see colours + feel textures
synaesthesia???
common sensibles (Aristotle) � spatial from sight + touch, e.g. what�s the difference between seeing + feeling a shape?
patterns of ambient energy reponding to:
e.g. electromagnetic, chemical, acoustic
but can't define the appropriate classes of stimuli until we know what the senses are
e.g. infra-red used as heat + vision by different species
organs
Stoffregen + Bardy (BBS)
perception ≠ a group of parallel systems but a single unit
they argue that our picture of the world is cross-modal from the start (Gibsonian framework)
the senses resonate jointly to the whole environment
but what about anatomically different pathways?
well, our 2 eyes/ears don't �/span> separate pictures
anatomically distinct, but irreducible coordinated end products
if remove 1 bit, the remainders works differently without it
neurophysiology
Stein + Meredith (93) � no animal has exclusively different sensory representations
attention across the senses
exogenous (reflexive, automatic, involuntary, stimulus-driven) � pull cues
endogenous (voluntary) orientation � push cues
need both � many different characteristics, probably different neural substrates
spatial attention, or dimensions within a modality
domains of spatial attention
separate disjoint attentional systems
anti � Farah (1989) supramodal master map controlling spatial attention across modalities
loose couplings (Driver + Spence 1994) � the sense tend to affect each other
the critical difference is that this allows for the possibility of different places with different modalities
thus define the senses as domains of spatial attention that can sometimes be de-coupled
exogenous attention is much more tightly coupled
Molyneux�s question � man born blind differentiating sphere + cube by touch
learns to see � can he tell them apart immediately by sight?
but visual system will need time to build itself � doesn't happen immediately
this misses the point of Molyneux�s question
Locke said he couldn't � because touch must calibrate the �lights + colours� of vision
distorting prism lens distorts touch, babies have innate basis for 3D visual experience
Uzbeks can't attend specifically, to the colour dimensions
understanding of spatial concepts � impossible with hearing alone
does interpretation of vision depend on touch? or vice versa? or equally basic?
is one sensory modality more basic (for consciousness, or spatial concepts) than the others?
Campbell thinks this is a good question � I think the answer is �obviously not � it must be multi-modal (� 2)��
Charles Spence � reading class
Philosophy of Psychology � reading class
�infra-red used as heat + vision by different species�???
what about neural representation???
don't you want a means of forming a hierarchy and declaring some senses to be closer than others (pain/temp etc.)???
what about internal senses???
but I can pay attention to 2 places in visual experience whereas loose coupling assumes 1 space of attention per sense
why is differentiating/individuating the senses important???
why/how differentiate internal + external senses, e.g. vestibular???
Uzbeks� problem with colour dimension � linguistic determinism???
in Strawson sounds only, des he have locomotion???
maybe it�s not touch so much as motor???