Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception 1st Edition

A very good book. Searle's focus is on perception, particularly vision, but he brings the other senses in as well. He begins by reviewing what he calls the "bad argument" which he claims has misled philosophy for the past few hundred years. His review of the "bad argument" is straight forward but its badness springs directly from its opposition to his own view which he calls "direct realism", a term he prefers to "naive realism" which nevertheless also fits his position. Searle's view is like a glass of cool water on a hot day. I would call it "common sense realism", but M. Ferraris has already adopted that phrase for his "new realism". The two views have much in common, but Ferraris' focus is not perception as such. I have reviewed a few of Ferraris' books elsewhere on Amazon.

In an early chapter on consciousness in general Searle burnishes his materialist credentials by declaring (at least as concerns life on Earth) that consciousness is necessarily associated with brains (which is uncontroversial), but he also declares that brains alone are sufficient to produce consciousness, something that no one (on Earth) knows for sure. This precisely why there is a "hard problem of consciousness". He repeats this claim a few times but his theory of perception does not hang on it. Another quibble is that he is a little sloppy as concerns statements of cosmological fact. In one of his examples he says "I look at the star and know it ceased to exist millions of years ago". He could only mean "I look at the stellar explosion" (a nova or supernova) and know it ceased to exist millions of years ago." If he "sees the star" then the light of its demise has not reached us yet and he could not know that it has already ceased to exist.

Searle begins by recognizing that when we experience something visually, what we have is a "subjective ontology", a phenomenal experience that philosophers for centuries have called a "sense datum". The "bad argument" comes down to the belief that this sense datum is really all we KNOW and that for all we know there is nothing about "objective ontology", the structure of the mind-independent world, to which we have access unless the sense datum represents the objective to the subjective. What has confused philosophy for centuries is the matter of how (or if) this representation actually works. Searle's argument here is very simple. Our senses, particularly vision and touch, do not merely represent the world, but PRESENT it, presentation being a special case of representation. What constitutes presentation specifically is that there are "conditions of satisfaction" for the presentation. If I see a tree, the sense datum is satisfied (and so presented and not merely represented) by there being an actual tree where I see it. This accounts for hallucinations. If the identical sense datum is hallucinated then the satisfaction criteria are not met, no tree is present where I appear to see it.

Presentation is causal with the direction of cause going from world to mind, objective to subjective. Response (what Searle calls "direction of fit"), on the other hand goes from mind to world. Searle also gets a bit into "action" because it happens that its connection between mind and world is the inverse of perception. Cause goes from mind to world and the "direction of fit" from world to mind. This ties in beautifully with Ferraris' concepts "unamendability" (perception) and affordance (action). Searle recognizes the matter of will, free will, comes up here but he demurs. I would like to see him talk about it somewhere.

Searle goes on to flesh out perception with a distinction between basic presentational properties like shape, color, motion, and so on, and those properties that require background knowledge on the part of the receiver. Perception is hierarchical. This accounts for the distinction between seeing a shape and color (basic perception) and seeing "an automobile", and further up the hierarchy (additional background), recognizing "my car". Importantly, "conditions of satisfaction" lie all the way up the hierarchy and they really apply TO THE OBJECT. The base phenomenology is not only a black object of such and such a size, but a car, and furthermore, it really is my car! All of this makes perfect sense to me, but then I am also a realist. It is hard to imagine not living one's life in a realist mental environment. If you are about to step off a curb into a lane of traffic but have a visual experience of a black object about the size of a car hurtling down the same lane towards you, you likely ASSUME that the object IS a car and that it makes sense not to step into the lane. You take for granted that the object is being presented and not merely represented to you.

Philosophically though, Searle's perception requires two assumptions. First that your brain and sensory system are operating within normal parameters, and second that the mind-independent world is genuinely structured AS PRESENTED. It is this mind-independent structure (including I believe its causal relations) that constitutes the "conditions of satisfaction" of the presentation which rests also on the causal relations between perception and the perceived object.! For Searle to get his theory of perception out, he has to presuppose that the world is real and already structured having causal properties. The apropos structure must be present to be presented. This is the very assumption that anti-realists want desperately to avoid and it makes Searle's argument circular. Because of the causal properties, the demand that we live AS IF the world is presented breaks the tie in favor of Searle's position (and against anti-realism), but I do not recall him acknowledging this circularity..

Apart from this omission, the book is a very refreshing departure from all the anti-realism I've been reading lately. It is not a long or very technical read. I highly recommend it.

Is perception of reality, of only of a hallucination of uncertain correspondence? Most philosophers of the last several centuries have been in awe of the supposed powers of hallucination. Searle shows the thorough illogic of the rabbit hole they've dragged their profession down.

This book presents a theory of perception that I think ties in with Philip Kitcher's argument that our abilities in math come from perception leading to elementary mathematical knowledge on which is built the edifice of further theory. At the moment I am reading another book that reminded me of this argument. Retrieving Realism by Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus is that book and this one Seeing Things as They Are by John Searle (which I have just barely begun) both strike me as trying to do something similar as Kitcher. That is they are trying to do an end run around what Taylor refers to as the mediational theory that basically cuts knowledge off from reality – or rather, from the possibility that we could have certainty regarding the world apart from our perceptions. Of course, even that summary is mistaken since the issue is more complex than that. Or what might be called disjunctivism (but which he calls Conceptual Dualism) as I understand it in Searle’s argument and Searle says “Austin refuted the argument from illusion.” – which argument is a major step here. But regarding Philip Kitcher’s attempt in the Nature of Mathematical Knowledge we have what may be the most certain type of knowledge being puzzled out regarding the source of that sense of certainty. Recalling Wittgenstein’s statement that the type of certainty one has is a result of the type of language game one is using – we can think of mathematics as the most rigorous language game and so our sense of certainty (a different category than knowledge granted) is greatest in mathematics. But how do we get it? Do we perceive numbers? But this whole project strikes me as suspicious. Haven’t we been convinced that Western Philosophy has been a history of progress? The progress was partially because of the correct step that we are now contemplating reversing in order to retrieve realism? But we can see the effort by Kitcher who deals adequately I think with the puzzles even if the results are not conclusive. This book is interesting in dealing with the nature of perception in general.

I am now reading - seems to be very interesting: And I think the book has to be translated into German!
Later more - a slow german reader looking after single special philosophical words in dictionary. But what I've yet read: Believe a serious alternative to german philosophy since Descartes!