Mason Westfall

Perception puts us in touch with highly determinate properties of objects, such as fine‐grained color shades and detailed surface shapes. However, most of our immediate perceptual judgments concern more abstract properties, such as the property of being a dog, or of being red simpliciter. So, how does perception attune us to abstract properties despite its evident determinacy? This paper argues that perception can be sensitive to abstract properties in multiple, fundamentally different ways. We articulate a distinction between implicit and explicit perceptual abstraction and explore its ramifications for debates about the role of concepts in perception, the richness of perceptual content, and rationalist versus empiricist views of our innate representational repertoire. We also propose an empirical test for differentiating implicit from explicit perceptual abstraction. Finally, we outline a version of Conceptualism built on the implicit/explicit distinction, on which explicit perceptual abstraction involves the use of concepts, while implicit abstraction can occur non‐conceptually. We argue that this form of Conceptualism is both empirically viable and unscathed by prominent Non‐Conceptualist arguments.

Perception puts us in touch with highly determinate properties of objects, such as fine-grained color shades and detailed surface shapes. However, most of our immediate perceptual judgments concern more abstract properties, such as the property of being a dog, or of being red simpliciter. So, how does perception attune us to abstract properties despite its evident determinacy? This paper argues that perception can be sensitive to abstract properties in multiple, fundamentally different ways. We articulate a distinction between implicit and explicit perceptual abstraction and explore its ramifications for debates about the role of concepts in perception, the richness of perceptual content, and rationalist versus empiricist views of our innate representational repertoire. We also propose an empirical test for differentiating implicit from explicit perceptual abstraction. Finally, we outline a version of Conceptualism built on the implicit/explicit distinction, on which explicit perceptual abstraction involves the use of concepts, while implicit abstraction can occur non-conceptually. We argue that this form of Conceptualism is both empirically viable and unscathed by prominent Non-Conceptualist arguments.

In this chapter, I juxtapose the mindshaping research program with the literature on the metaphysics of social construction. I suggest that these research programs are remarkably congenial. The practices of interest to mindshaping theorists are more or less straightforward instances of the processes that are taken to be essential to social construction. As such, a constructionist metaphysics of psychological kinds is readily available. I discuss some recent constructionist treatments of particular psychological kinds against this backdrop, before considering how the constructionist outlook interacts with more orthodox viewpoints in the metaphysics of mind.

People are manifestly polarized. On many topics, extreme perspectives are much easier to find than ‘reasonable’, ‘moderate’ perspectives. A natural reaction to this situation is that something epistemically irrational is afoot. Here, I question this natural reaction. I argue that often polarization is epistemically innocuous. In particular, I argue that certain mechanisms that underlie polarization are rational, and polarized beliefs are often fully justified. Additionally, even reflective subjects, who recognize themselves as in a polarized or polarizing situation shouldn’t necessarily reduce confidence in the relevant beliefs. Finally, I draw attention to some often overlooked epistemic _benefits_ associated with polarization. A fuller understanding of the epistemology of polarization requires incorporating both the potential costs and the potential benefits, and being more precise about exactly what is—and is not—epistemically objectionable in these situations.

Quilty-Dunn et al. argue that deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) optimized for image classification exemplify structural disanalogies to human vision. A different kind of artificial vision – found in reinforcement-learning agents navigating artificial three-dimensional environments – can be expected to be more human-like. Recent work suggests that language-like representations substantially improves these agents’ performance, lending some indirect support to the language-of-thought hypothesis (LoTH).

What’s the difference between those psychological posits that are ‘me” and those that are not? Distinguishing between these psychological kinds is important in many domains, but an account of what the distinction consists in is challenging. I argue for Psychological Constructionism: those psychological posits that correspond to the kinds within folk psychology are personal, and those that don’t, aren’t. I suggest that only constructionism can answer a fundamental challenge in characterizing the personal level – the plurality problem. The things that plausibly qualify as personal are motley. Other attempts at accounting for the personal level either cannot accommodate this plurality, or cannot explain what unifies the personal. Given arguments others have given for a pluralistic conception of folk psychology, constructionism explains and predicts this plurality in a systematic and unified way, thereby solving the plurality problem.

When we look around us, some things look “alive,” others do not. What is it to “look alive”—to perceive animacy? Empirical work supports the view that animacy is genuinely perceptual. We should construe perception of animacy as perception of agents and behavior. This proposal explains how static and dynamic animacy cues relate, and explains how animacy perception relates to social cognition more broadly. Animacy perception draws attention to objects that are apt to be well‐understood folk psychologically, enabling us to marshal our folk psychological resources efficiently.

How do we know about other minds on the basis of perception? The two most common answers to this question are that we literally perceive others’ mental states, or that we infer their mental states on the basis of perceiving something else. In this paper, I argue for a different answer. On my view, we don’t perceive mental states, and yet perceptual experiences often immediately justify mental state attributions. In a slogan: other minds are neither seen nor inferred. I argue that this view offers the best explanation of our deeply equivocal intuitions about perception-based mental state attributions, and also holds substantial interest for the epistemology of perception more generally.