Błażej Skrzypulec

It is widely accepted within contemporary philosophy of perception that the content of visual states cannot be characterized simply as a list of represented features. This is because such characterization leads to the so-called, “Many Properties problem”, i.e. it does not allow us to explain how the visual system is able to distinguish between scenes containing different arrangements of the same features. The usual solution to the Many Properties problem is to characterize some elements of content as subjects, to which features are attributed by a predication-like relation. In this paper, I reconsider this solution and claim that the Many Properties problem can be solved without invoking the notion of “subject”. What is more, I argue that an alternative approach has stronger justification given the empirical data concerning human vision.

In the contemporary analytic discussions concerning human olfactory perception, it is commonly claimed that olfactory experiences are representations having content and olfactory experiences represent odours, like coffee odour or vanilla odour. However, despite these common assumptions, there seems to be an ontological controversy between two views: the first states that odours represented by olfaction should be characterised as features and the second states that they should be interpreted as objects. In this paper, I aim to systematically address the “feature or object” status of odours by comparing their ontological characteristics to those possessed by visually represented objects and features. I argue that olfactorily represented odours constitute a sui generis ontological category which differs from the categories of visually represented entities and cannot be easily classified as objects or features. Such investigations constitute a step in establishing whether various human modalities are ontologically unified by organising the environment according to the same categories.

In the contemporary analytic discussions concerning human olfactory perception, it is commonly claimed that (1) olfactory experiences are representations having content and (2) olfactory experiences represent odours, like coffee odour or vanilla odour. However, despite these common assumptions, there seems to be an ontological controversy between two views: the first states that odours are perceptually represented as features and the second states that they are represented as objects. In this paper, I aim to systematically address the Bfeature or object^ status of represented odours by concerning whether odours are represented (a) as subjects of properties, (b) as mereological wholes, and (c) entities persisting in a way characteristic for objects. I argue that olfactorily represented odours constitute a sui generis category and cannot be easily classified as objects or features. Such investigations constitute a step in establishing whether various human modalities are unified by organising the environment according to the same categories.

Within cognitive psychology it is widely accepted that the human visual system represents the numerical sameness of objects. However, the relation of visual sameness itself has not attracted as much attention and no detailed description of this relation is yet available. One of the most important questions is whether this relation can be understood as classical identity, and thus whether it is an equivalence relation. Despite this research gap, I intend to show that results of some psychological works can be interpreted as having a high relevance for the question of equivalence. I demonstrate this by analyzing a study by Drew et al. (2013).

Essential properties are usually thought as properties that things must always possess, whereas accidental properties are considered as changeable. In this paper, we challenge this traditional view. We argue that in some important cases, such as social or biological development, we face not only the change of accidents, but also the change of essences. To analyze this kind of change we propose an alternative view on the relations between the modalities and time. Some properties might be necessary or possible for a thing in a classical sense throughout its existence, whereas others might be necessary or possible only for some restricted periods. We distinguish therefore absolute, prospective, retrospective, and relative modalities. As we argue, these non-classical concepts of modality are useful in analysis of some puzzling case of seemingly changing essences.

While it is widely accepted that human vision represents objects, it is less clear which of the various philosophical notions of ‘object’ adequately characterizes visual objects. In this paper, I show that within contemporary cognitive psychology visual objects are characterized in two distinct, incompatible ways. On the one hand, models of visual organization describe visual objects in terms of combinations of features, in accordance with the philosophical bundle theories of objects. However, models of visual persistence apply a notion of visual objects that is more similar to that endorsed in philosophical substratum theories. Here I discuss arguments that might show either that only one of the above notions of visual objects is adequate in the context of human vision, or that the category of visual objects is not uniform and contains entities properly characterized by different philosophical conceptions.

The aim of paper is to consider some similarities and differences between Fichte’s doctrine of idealism and Dummett’s conception of semantic antirealism. While Fichte built his idealistic view in the classical way as a metaphysical doctrine, Dummet sought to ground the fundamental distinction between realistic and antirealistic theories in alternative semantic conceptions of truth conditions. The main question of the paper is whether it is possible to interpret Fichte’s metaphysical doctrine as an anti-realist one according to the criteria proposed by Dummett. To order to answer such a question one has to consider a set of interrelated issues; among them is Fichte’s doctrine based upon an assumption of a reality determining the truth values of sentences; does it accept facts the cognition of which exceeds the epistemic abilities of the subject; does it allow for the existence of facts which are ontologically unrelated to subject. In Fichte’s view a subject consist of elements such as “the I”, “the Absolute I”, “the Non-I”, “the empirical I” which are related to each other in a complex way. Within the analytical philosophy the concept of the subject is much simpler and its meaning is usually confined to the meaning of the “empirical I” in Fichte’s terminology. Key words FICHTE, DUMMET, IDEALISM, ANTYREALISM

One of the main functions of visual system is to construct representations of objects. These ‘visual objects’ are formed by developing the structure of more primitive visual representations. In the course of the article, I define the notions of ‘minimal visual object’, ‘maximal-non object representation’, and ‘constructing characteristic’ that differentiates minimal objects from maximal non-objects. Relying on these distinctions, I consider the type of ontological change that transforms visual regions, treated as maximal non-object representations, into basic, low-level visual objects. In order to identify such a change, theories of early vision, models of figure/ground distinction, and analytic, ontological notions of objects’ structure are discussed. Finally, a thesis is stated that external relations constitute the main structural factor that determines the ontological transition between non-object representations and visual objects.

The article considers a claim that scientific theories can serve as models for philosophical conceptions. It is argued that a scientific theory is modelling a metaphysical conception iff the ontology connected with the metaphysical conception is included in the ontology connected with the scientific theory. However, metaphysical and scientific ontologies may be compared only after the application of interpretative procedures that constitute 'philosophical hermeneutics'. To justify this claim, it is argued that: (1) there are ontologies connected with metaphysical conceptions, (2) there are ontologies connected with scientific theories, (3) there exist logical relations between ontologies connected with metaphysical conceptions and those connected with scientific theories, (4) these ontologies are usually incomplete and need specification by using interpretative procedures. The points (1) and (2) are justified by showing that ontological statements, i.e. statements which describe categories of objects and relations between them but disregard the extensions of terms naming the objects' categories, can be inferred from typical metaphysical and scientific statements. Accordingly, it is claimed that ontological statements connected with metaphysical conceptions and scientific theories are free from the semantic differences that prevent typical metaphysical and scientific statements from standing in logical relations to each other (assumption 3). Subsequently, a set of pragmatic decisions is described, needed to specify metaphysical and scientific ontologies up to the level that allows comparisons between them (assumption 4). Finally, the article presents the notion of modelling as a relation between scientific theories and metaphysical conceptions.

Od opublikowania tekstu Maxa Blacka The Identity of Indiscernibles (1952) — stanowiącego locus classicus analitycznych dyskusji dotyczących obowiązywania zasady identyczności przedmiotów nieodróżnialnych — minęło już blisko 60 lat. W rozlicznych tekstach napisanych od tego czasu niejednokrotnie zwracano uwagę, że rozwiązanie problemu w dużej mierze determinowane jest przez przyjęte założenia, np. odnośnie zaakceptowanej wersji zasady identyczności przedmiotów nieodróżnialnych (np. Adams 1979) lub natury przestrzeni (np. O’Connor 1976). W poniższym tekście postaram się pokazać, w jaki sposób zmiany w przyjętych założeniach wpływają na wnioski dotyczące obowiązywania zasady identyczności przedmiotów nieodróżnialnych. Dodatkowo wskażętakże na pewne związki pomiędzy koncepcjami indywidualności a rozstrzygnięciami dotyczącymi odróżnialności

Tematem artykułu jest eksplanacyjna rola jaką mogą pełnić teorie filozoficzne w badaniach z zakresu kognitywistyki. Wyróżnione zostają cztery uzupełniające się role, powiązane z różnymi koncepcjami wyjaśniania. Zgodnie z pierwszą rolą eksplanacyjną teorie filozoficzne wyjaśniają na sposób opisywany w koncepcjach naukowego wyjaśniania. Uzyskanie tego rodzaju wyjaśnień przy użyciu teorii filozoficznych wymaga jednak przeformułowania ich tez, przy użyciu pewnych rozumowań analogicznych, w twierdzenia mające charakter naukowy. Wedle drugiej roli ekplanacyjnej teorie filozoficzne wyjaśniają poprzez sformułowanie koniecznych i wystarczających warunków, które muszą być spełnione przez schemat pojęciowy opisujący pewien stan rzeczy. Podobnie w przypadku trzeciej roli teoria filozoficzna wyjaśnia poprzez wskazanie koniecznych i wystarczających warunków zgodności pomiędzy pojęciami używanymi w teorii naukowej a strukturą tej teorii. Wreszcie zgodnie z czwartą rolą teorie filozoficzne wyjaśniają poprzez zastosowanie argumentacji transcendentalnej. W końcowej części artykułu zaprezentowane są wzajemne powiązania pomiędzy czterema powyższymi rolami eksplanacyjnymi.