Jonathan Cohen

This paper challenges the traditional understanding of secondary affect, on which the latter is a cognitive appraisal of a somatic state that already has an antecedent, primary affect. We appeal to cases of acquired anosmia—the loss of the sense of smell—to argue that there are instances where secondary affect arises in the absence of (indeed, because of the absence of) primary affect, and that this can be so even when the secondary state is completely veridical. We conclude that, in this specific sense, secondary affect need not be secondary after all.

If suffering confers practical reason, and thereby comes to be integrated in critical ways with practical rationality in creatures like us, there seem nonetheless to be significant limits to that integration. In particular, when suffering becomes (practical) reason-conferring for a subject (when it enters into what Sellars (1956) famously calls the “space of reasons”), it nonetheless continues to behave in ways that distinguish it from other objects of rationality, and make it appear more like (yet nonetheless still distinct from) a kind of non-rational, outside influence. In this sense, suffering seems to play a dual (partly rational, partly not rational) role in the mental lives of creatures like us. Interestingly, and as we shall argue below, this duality seems peculiar to our sorts of mental lives: it likely does not occur in the mental lives of psychologically less or more rationally sophisticated creatures.

In this paper I argue that two standard characterizations of colour constancy are inadequate to the phenomenon. This inadequacy matters, since, I contend, philosophical appeals to colour constancy as a way of motivating illumination-independent conceptions of colour turn crucially on the shortcomings of these characterizations. After critically reviewing the standard characterizations, I provide a novel counterfactualist understanding of colour constancy, argue that it avoids difficulties of its traditional rivals, and defend it from objections. Finally, I show why, on this improved understanding, colour constancy does not have the philosophical consequences that have been claimed for it in the literature.

A bedrock principle in pragmatics is that the linguistic signals produced by speakers generally underdetermine the meanings that are communicated to interpreters. For Grice, for instance, utterance meaning lies close to what is overtly encoded, allowing only for the resolution of indexicals, tense, reference, and ambiguity. Lepore and Stone (L&S) agree, but with a stunning twist: they analyze all extrasemantic content as being derived from ambiguity resolution, leaving no work for Gricean tools. Despite significant areas of concurrence with L&S, we ultimately find their analysis to be untenable. To establish this, we focus on a form of pragmatic enrichment that recruits coherence establishment processes to apply within the clause—‘eliciture’—for which we see no credible analysis in terms of ambiguity resolution. We argue that an adequate account of language understanding must recognize the robust roles of both ambiguity resolution and pragmatic enrichment, using tense interpretation as a case study.

It appears that the distinctive feature at the core of our understanding of synesthesia—informational integration between psychological systems—is also ubiquitous in normal perception. This observation invites the question whether synesthesia is a fundamentally distinct, pathological outlier, or a syndrome continuous with capacities present in normal perception. In this chapter I offer several arguments for the continuity view. I suggest that the forms of integration in synesthetic and normal perception exhibit striking, detailed, and unexpected similarities, while the evidence some have taken to reveal significant, qualitative dissimilarities is less decisive than it may first appear. Moreover, the continuity view correctly predicts the otherwise surprising result that synesthetes perform better than non-synesthete controls in integrative perceptual tasks that don’t implicate synesthetic perception. I’ll conclude that synesthetic perception is usefully viewed as closer to non-synesthetic perception (a fortiori, less clearly pathological) than standard views allow.

This paper challenges the traditional understanding of secondary affect, on which the latter is a cognitive appraisal of a somatic state that already has an antecedent, primary affect. We appeal to cases of acquired anosmia—the loss of the sense of smell—to argue that there are instances where secondary affect arises in the absence of (indeed, because of the absence of) primary affect, and that this can be so even when the secondary state is completely veridical. We conclude that, in this specific sense, secondary affect need not be secondary after all.

Perception not only registers property instances, but also connects with and attributes properties to individual entities—so‐called sensory individuals, or SIs. But what are SIs? The most‐discussed answers are: (i) SIs are ordinary material objects—cohesive, temporally persistent objects extended and bounded in space, and (ii) SIs are locations or regions in spacetime. I will argue for the object view of SIs on the grounds that its rival, the locational view, faces obstacles concerning the relationship between SIs and spacetime: it makes a mystery of perception's representation of SIs as occupying locations in and moving in ordinary spacetime.

Phenomenal Contrast Arguments (PCAs) are a prominent method in philosophy of mind for, among other uses, investigating how specific mental features shape the phenomenal character of experience. This paper identifies a general and underexplored obstacle to the success of PCAs: The necessity of demonstrating that the contrasts employed in these arguments are genuinely phenomenal, rather than merely cognitive or otherwise non-phenomenal. We contend that proponents of PCAs often assume a phenomenal difference without adequately ruling out these alternative explanations for the available contrast. While we do not preclude the possibility of successful PCAs, our arguments suggest that many existing instances fail to meet this burden.

A long-cherished view in philosophy and psychology treats perception as largely consisting in a set of segregated feature detectors. However, the current evidence suggests that this traditional view is false: there is significant interaction between distinct types of information at all levels of perception. This chapter argues that embracing an “integrative” view of perception has significant ramifications for discussions of modularity and the cognitive penetrability of perception. The chapter claims that, contrary to standard interpretations, an integrative conception of perception is compatible with a robust, if revisionary, understanding of modularity that upholds the purposes for which the notion was originally introduced, and usefully complicates the relation between the modular/non-modular distinction and the perception/cognition distinction: it shows how perceptual processes can fail to be modular without, ipso facto, being penetrated by cognition.

Molyneux addressed his question to Locke in two forms. The question that is most often discussed in the literature is the 1693 version–about whether a newly sighted man could distinguish a globe and a cube when they are presented to his sight alone. But in 1688, he asked whether this man could know which was the globe. While Locke and Molyneux probably thought this an unnecessary add-on, we argue that it changes the question. Locke had no account of how one could know a contingent singular fact by sight or by vision. We argue that we know in these ways by using a process of active sensory exploration that employs the modality in question. A new form of Molyneux’s question emerges from this understanding of perceptual knowledge. While the variety of sensory exploration methods within and across modalities raises considerable difficulties for a positive answer, the original question, like the later version, can ultimately be answered only by empirical investigation.

A timely collection of debates concerning the major themes and topics in philosophy of mind, fully updated with new topics covering the latest developments in the field Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind provides a lively and engaging introduction to the conceptual background, ongoing debates, and contentious issues in the field today. Original essays by more than 30 of the discipline’s most influential thinkers offer opposing perspectives on a series of contested questions regarding mental content, physicalism, the place of consciousness in the physical world, and the nature of perception and mental capacities. Written to appeal to non-specialists and professional philosophers alike, the second edition of Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind features five entirely new debates on the relation between perception and cognition, whether pain is a natural kind, whether perception is best understood through representational content or direct contact with the world, whether we need imagination that goes beyond imagery and supposition, and whether perceptual contents are general, particular, or a hybrid. Presents 15 sets of specially commissioned essays with opposing viewpoints on central topics in philosophy of mind Offers head-to-head debates on central topics such as consciousness, intentionality, normativity, mental causation, materialism, and perception Provides a dynamic view of contemporary thinking about fundamental and controversial issues Includes a thorough introduction providing a comprehensive background to the issues explored in each debate Part of Wiley-Blackwell’s acclaimed Contemporary Debates in Philosophy series, Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind, Second Edition is essential reading for undergraduate and graduate students, academics, professional philosophers, and sophisticated general readers with an interest in the subject.

Color relationalism is the view that colors are constituted in terms of relations between subjects and objects. The most historically important form of color relationalism is the classic dispositionalist view according to which, for example red is the disposition to look red to standard observers in standard conditions (mutatis mutandis for other colors).1 However, it has become increasingly apparent in recent years that a commitment to the relationality of colors bears interest that goes beyond dispositionalism (Cohen, 2004; Matthen, 1999, 2001, 2005; Thompson, 1995). Accordingly, it is an important project for those interested in the metaphysics of color to sort through and assess different forms of color relationalism. There is, however, a powerful and general cluster of objections that has been thought by many to amount to a decisive refutation of any and all forms of color relationalism. Although this idea has been developed in a number of ways, the basic thought is that relationalism — qua theory of color — is at odds with the manifest evidence of color phenomenology, and that this clash between theory and data should be resolved by giving up the theory.

When interpreting a sentence such as Every time the company fires an employee who comes in late, a union complaint is lodged, an addressee is likely to infer that the union will only complain when an employee is fired because he came in late. One is thus led to ask why a purely pragmatic enrichment of this sort -- one drawn despite no risk of interpretative failure nor other linguistic mandate -- would intrude upon truth conditions. We argue that this effect results from the interaction among three pragmatic phenomena: presupposition, the associative mechanisms that underlie the establishment of coherence in discourse, and the calculation of domain restriction for quantificational operators. Because the analysis does not consider the operative enrichments to be species of implicature, we claim that such cases do not represent an intrusion of implicature into truth-conditional content. Instead, they merely involve the context-dependent determination of quantificational domains.