An Enactivist Critique of the Non-Conceptualist Argument for the Richness of Perception and Its Model of Perceptual Content
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21680/1983-2109.2026v33n70ID39202Keywords:
Enactivism, Perception, Nonconceptualism, Cognitivism, Mental ContentAbstract
In this article, we will critically analyze the non-conceptualist argument for the richness of perception from the sensorimotor enactivist tradition. According to non-conceptualists, the content of perception is far richer and more detailed than the content of our beliefs. The non-conceptualist model of perceptual content assumes that we possess an internal, detailed representation of the environment. The enactivist approach, however, rejects the idea that we construct internal representations of the environment in order to perceive it. The fact that we have immediate access to the environment through sensorimotor skills makes the reconstruction of the environment in the form of mental representations unnecessary. If this is the case, the argument for the richness of perception is inadequate for defending a non-conceptualist approach. Our suggestion is that enactivism provides a better explanation of the non-conceptual nature of perception without postulating the need for internal, detailed representations of the environment.
Downloads
References
BARRETT, Louise. Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
BERMÚDEZ, José. Philosophy of psychology: a contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge, 1998.
BERMÚDEZ, José. Nonconceptual content: from perceptual experience to subpersonal computational states. In: GUNTHER, York. (ed.). Essays on nonconceptual content. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2003.
BERMÚDEZ, José. The distinction between conceptual and nonconceptual content. In: MCLAUGHLIN, Brian.; BECKERMANN, Ansgar.; WALTER, Sven. (ed.). The oxford handbook of philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
BREWER, Bill. Perception and reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
BURGE, Tyler. Marr’s theory of vision. In: GARFIELD, Jay. Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4735.003.0028.
BURGE, Tyler. Perceptual Entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, v. 67, n. 3, 2003, p. 503–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00307.x
BURGE, Tyler. Origins of perception. Disputatio, v. 4, n. 1, 2010, p. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2010-0009.
CARVALHO, Eros. An actionist approach to the justificational role of perceptual
experience. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, v. 72, n. 2-3, 2016, p. 545-572. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44028685.
CLARK, Andy. Where Brain, Body, and World Collide. Daedalus, v. 127, n. 2, 1998, p. 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00002-9.
FUCHS, Thomas. The Brain: A Mediating Organ. Journal of Consciousness Studies, v. 18, n. 7–8, 2001, p. 196–221. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2011/00000018/f0020007/art00009.
JOHNSON, Mark.; TUCKER, Don. Out of the Cave: A Natural Philosophy of Mind and Knowing. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2021.
HECK, Richard. Nonconceptual content and the space of reasons. The Philosophical Review, v. 109, 2000, p. 483-523. https://doi.org/10.2307/2693622.
HURLEY, Susan. Consciousness in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
KELLY, Sean. Demonstrative concepts and experience. Philosophical Review, v. 110, n. 3, 2001, p. 397–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2693650.
MCDOWELL, John. Mind and World. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996.
NÖE, Alva.; O’REGAN, John. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 24, n. 5, 2001, p. 939–1031. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01000115.
NÖE, Alva.; O’REGAN, John. On the brain-basis of visual consciousness: a sensorimotor account. In: NÖE, Alva.; O’REGAN, John. Vision and mind: selected readings in the philosophy of perception. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002.
NOË, Alva. Action in perception. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004.
NOË, Alva. Out of our heads: why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang, 2009.
NOË, Alva. Conscious reference. In: HAWLEY, Katherine.; MACPHERSON, Fiona. The admissible contents of experience. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
NOË, Alva. Varieties of presence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2012.
O’REGAN, John. Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory. Canadian journal of psychology, v. 46, n. 3, 1992, p. 461–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084327.
PEACOCKE, Christopher. Sense and content: experience, thought, and their relations. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1983.
PEACOCKE, Christopher. A study of concepts. 2. ed. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999.
PEACOCKE, Christopher. Does perception have a nonconceptual content? The Journal of Philosophy, v. 98, n. 5, 2001, p. 239–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/2678383.
PICCININI, Gualtiero. The Computational Theory of Cognition. In: MÜLLER, Vincent. (ed.). Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Switzerland: Synthese Library, 2016.
RAFTOPOULOS, Athanassios.; MÜLLER, Vincent. The phenomenal content of experience. Mind and Language, v. 21, n. 2, 2006, p. 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2006.00311.x.
RAFTOPOULOS, Athanassios. The cognitive impenetrability of the content of early vision is a necessary and sufficient condition for purely nonconceptual content. Philosophical Psychology, v. 27, n. 5, 2014, p. 601-620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.729486.
ROSKIES, Adina. A new argument for nonconceptual content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, v. 76, n. 3, 2008, p. 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2008.00160.x.
SCHMIDT, Eva. Modest Nonconceptualism: epistemology, phenomenology, and content. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
STERELNY, Kim. The representational theory of mind: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990.
TORIBIO, Josefa. Nonconceptual content. Philosophy Compass, v. 2, n. 3, 2007, p. 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00075.x.
TYE, Michael. Nonconceptual Content, Richness, and Fineness of Grain. In: GENDLER, Tamar.; HAWTHORNE, John. Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vinícius Francisco Apolinário
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Português (Brasil)
English
Español (España)
Français (Canada)
