Hamid Nourbakhshi

Can visual experience represent deific properties? I argue that it can. Some perceptual experiences, I claim, represent properties like being a creation of God or being a manifestation of divine beauty. To defend this thesis, I use Siegel’s method of phenomenal contrast. I compare an ordinary perception of an object with a perception of that same object during a religious experience in which it appears imbued with transcendent significance. These experiences differ phenomenologically. The best explanation of this difference, I argue, is that in the religious experience a deific property partly constitutes the visual phenomenology. I consider several rival explanations -- shifts in attention, post-attentive gestalt properties, inference from lower-level features, cognitive phenomenology, emotional accompaniment, background mood -- and argue that none adequately accounts for the contrast. I also argue that genuine cognitive penetration is compatible with, rather than opposed to, deific perception. If deific perception is real, it has significant epistemic consequences: perceptual experience may furnish defeasible, prima facie justification for theistic beliefs, connecting the high-level-content debate in philosophy of perception with long-standing questions about the evidential force of religious experience.

In this paper, I explore how Christian theology grapples with whether God has a gender—or if God transcends gender altogether—and how these perspectives influence both doctrine and worship. Many theologians insist on referring to God as exclusively masculine, while feminist and egalitarian voices challenge this practice, claiming that an overtly gendered God can conflict with the ideals of equality and with the principle of the imago Dei. After examining the socio-linguistic and historical factors behind the predominance of masculine divine imagery, I move on to discuss Michael Rea’s argument that attributing an unequal gender to God is metaphysically problematic. Rea argues that framing God in a strictly masculine way conflicts with the belief that men and women are equal image-bearers of God. I then present an objection to Rea’s view, based on the idea that not every divine attribute has to be mirrored in humanity. By distinguishing between attributes that are “image-relevant” and those that are not, I argue how one might conceive of a gendered God without undermining human equality and perfect being theology. I furthermore argue that why gender cannot be an image-relevant attribute of God, opening a conceptual room for the reconciliation of tradition, egalitarianism, and the doctrine of imago dei. Finally, I highlight the importance of considering socio-linguistic realities, feminist insights, and pastoral ramifications in deciding how best to speak of God in ways that respect both traditional theology and modern ethical commitments.

Considerable recent research in neurosciences has dealt with the topic of consciousness, even though there is still disagreement about how to identify and classify conscious states. Recent behavioral work on the topic also exists. We survey recent behavioral and neuroscientific literature with the aims of commenting on strengths and weaknesses of the literature and mapping new directions and recommendations for experimental psychologists. We reconcile this literature with a view of human information processing (Cowan, 1988; Cowan et al., 2024) in which a capacity-limited focus of attention is embedded within the activated portion of long-term memory, with dual bottom-up and top-down control of the focus of attention. None of the many extant theories fully captures what we propose as the organization of conscious thought at cognitive and neural levels. It seems clear that information from various cognitive functions, based on signals from various brain areas, is integrated into a conscious whole. In our new proposal, the integration involves funneling information to a hub or focus of attention neurally centered in the parietal lobes and functionally connected to areas representing the currently attended information. This funneling process (bringing information from diverse sensory and frontal sources to contact a small parietal area where attended information is coordinated and combined) may be the converse of global broadcasting, from other proposals (Baars et al., 2021; Baars & Franklin, 2003; Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). The proposed system incorporates many principles from previous research and theorization and strives toward a resolution of the relation between consciousness and attention. Keywords: consciousness, attention, embedded processes model, experimental psychology, neuroscience.

It is highly consensual that we can perceive so-called low-level properties such as shape, color, motion, spatial location, and illumination through vision. But it’s more controversial whether the contents of visual perception can reach beyond the limits of weakness and involve high-level properties as well. By high-level property, it’s meant properties such as natural/artificial/functional kind, causality, dispositional properties, gender, roughness, aesthetic properties, bodily sensations, states of mind, agency features, action features, and moral properties. In this dissertation, setting Susanna Siegel's rich content thesis as a framework and relying on her method of phenomenal contrast as a way of discovering the contents, I am intending to assess an account of perceiving moral properties. I will impose two objections against this model: The first one invokes the ignored role of imagination and recollection in the method and generally targets the method of contrast. The second one invokes the thesis of phenomenal holism and targets specifically the machinery of drawing contrast in the proposed moral pair. Finally, I’ll conclude that this account of moral perception, as well as other phenomenal-contrast-based accounts, is not tenable.

The method of phenomenal contrast (in perception) invokes the phenomenal character of perceptual experience as a means to discover its contents. The method implicitly takes for granted that ‘what it is like’ to have a perceptual experience e is the same as ‘what it is like’ to imagine or recall it; accordingly, in its various proposed implementations, the method treats imaginations and/or recollections as interchangeable with real experiences. The method thus always contrasts a pair of experiences, at least one of which is imagined or remembered rather than occurrent. Surveying all eighteen forms of implementing the method, I argue that in all of the proposed pairings, the substitution of imagination or recollection for perceptual experience in the method, is either inconceivable or impermissible. I identify four reasons why I think imagination cannot be substituted for real experience, and three reasons why recollection cannot be substituted for real experience. If my argument works, there is no form of implementing the method that is useful for discovering the contents of experience, and thus the method is not a well‐functioning tool to study the contents of perception.