Ecological disjunctivism and the causal argument

Authors

  • Eros Moreira de Carvalho UFRGS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2023.v46esp1.p147

Keywords:

Ecological disjunctivism, Causal argument, Indistinguishability, Dynamical feedback, Ecological psychology

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the ecological approach to perception provides resources to overcome the causal argument against disjunctivism. According to the causal argument, since the brain states that proximally cause the perceptual experience and the corresponding hallucinatory one can be of the same type, there would be no good reason to reject that the perceptual experience and the corresponding hallucinatory experience have fundamentally the same nature. Disjunctivism concerning the nature of the experience would then be false. I identify three assumptions that support the causal argument: the indistinguishability assumption, the linearity assumption, and the duplication assumption. According to the ecological approach to disjunctivism, these assumptions should be rejected, opening up room for a version of disjunctivism that I call 'Ecological Disjunctivism'. Perceptual episodes are extended over time and are supervenient to the organism-environment system. They can be distinguished from the 'corresponding' hallucinations because the former results from a controlled process of attunement to the environment, whereas hallucinations are passive and insensible to the exploratory activities of the perceptual system. Finally, ecological disjunctivism, since it is immune to the causal argument, is more advantageous than negative and positive disjunctivism.

Keywords: Ecological disjunctivism. Causal argument. Indistinguishability. Dynamical feedback. Ecological psychology.

Author Biography

  • Eros Moreira de Carvalho, UFRGS

    Professor de Filosofia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS – Brasil e Bolsista de Produtividade do CNPq. Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7267-5662.

References

AUSTIN, J. Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.

BURGE, T. Disjunctivism Again. Philosophical Explorations, v. 14, p. 43-80, nov. 2012.

CARVALHO, E. M. O Argumento da Ilusão/Alucinação e o Disjuntivismo: Ayer versus Austin. Sképsis, v. VIII, n. 12, p. 85-107, 2015.

CARVALHO, E. M. An ecological approach to disjunctivism. Synthese, v. 198, p. 285-306, jan. 2021.

CHEMERO, A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2009.

COSTALL, A. P. Are Theories of Perception Necessary? A Review of Gibsons’s The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, v. 41, n. 1, p. 109-115, jan. 1984.

GIBSON, J. J. New Reasons for Realism. Synthese, v. 17, n. 2, p. 162-172, 1967.

GIBSON, J. J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1968.

GIBSON, J. J. On the Relation between Hallucination and Perception. Leonardo, v. 33, n. 2, p. 425-427, 1970. GIBSON, J. J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Classical Edition. New York: Psychology, 2015.

HADDOCK, A.; MACPHERSON, F. Introduction: Varieties of Disjunctivism. In: HADDOCK, A.; MACPHERSON, F. (ed.). Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 1-24.

HINTON, J. M. Visual Experiences. Mind, v. LXXVI, n. 302, p. 217-227, 1967.

HURLEY, S. L. Consciousness in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.

JOHNSTON, M. The Obscure Object of Hallucination. Philosophical Studies, v. 120, n. 1, p. 113-183, 1 jul. 2004.

LOBO, L.; HERAS-ESCRIBANO, M.; TRAVIESO, D. The History and Philosophy of Ecological Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, v. 9, p. 1-15, nov. 2018.

MARTIN, M. G. F. The Limits of Self-Awareness. Philosophical Studies, v. 120, n. 1-3, p. 37-89, jul. 2004.

MARTIN, M. G. F. The Reality of Appearances. In: BYRNE, A.; LOGUE, H. (ed.). Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings. [s.l.] The MIT Press, 2008. p. 91-115.

MCDOWELL, J. Criteria, Defeasibility, and Knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, v. 68, p. 455-479, 1983.

PRITCHARD, D. Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

REED, E. S. Two Theories of Intentionality of Perceiving. Synthese v. 54, n. 1, p. 85–94, 1983.

SHAW, R.; BRANSFORD, J. Introduction: Psychological Approaches to the Problem of Knowledge. In: SHAW, R.; BRANSFORD, J. (ed.). Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. p. 1-39.

SHAW, R. E.; TURVEY, M. T.; MACE, W. M. Ecological Psychology: The Consequence of a Commitment to Realism. In: WEIMER, W.; PALERMO, D. (ed.). Cognition and the Symbolic Processes II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982. v. 2, p. 159-226.

SHAW, R.; MCINTYRE, M.; MACE, W. M. The Role of Symmetry in Event Perception. In: Perception: Essays in Honor of James J. Gibson. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. p. 276-310.

SOTERIOU, M. Disjunctivism. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.

THOMPSON, E.; COSMELLI, D. Brain in a Vat or Body in a World? Brainbound versus Enactive Views of Experience. Philosophical Topics, v. 39, n. 1, p. 163-180, 2011.

TURVEY, M. T. et al. Ecological Laws of Perceiving and Acting: In Reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition, v. 9, n. 3, p. 237-304, 1981.

WITHAGEN, R. Affective Gibsonian Psychology. New York: Routledge, 2022.

Recebido: 15/08/2022

Aceito: 07/02/2023

Published

2023-05-19

How to Cite

Ecological disjunctivism and the causal argument. (2023). Trans/Form/Ação, 46, 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2023.v46esp1.p147