Visual Experience: A Semantic Approach

Consider the color character of your visual experience a gray patch. We communicate about this with following ‘looks’ sentence:(1) The patch looks to you.Perhaps, then, we can better understand what it is have by examining meaning (1). And if method extends other characters experience, then learn in general through study sentences. This “semantic approach” promised title Wylie Breckenridge's thought-provoking monograph. It leads him two key theses: first, way that occurring (i.e., adverbialism true); second, does not representational content representationalism false).After introductory chapter 1, Breckenridge turns, 2, show (1) something way. Evidence for comes, instance, from echo questions, as (2), and anaphora, (3).(2) a. me. b. how you?(3) me, you too.The same pattern displayed sentences ways sorts events, like walking (4)–(5).(4) Mary walks proud. how?(5) proud, John too.In 3, discusses should think looking particular examples events more generally.When say (1), exactly are claiming occurs? answer is: “the maximally specific w such generically true whose stimulus occur w” (68).1 Analogously, when ‘Mary proud’, mean proud agents There mechanism, claims 4, allows us use adjectives talk all kinds occur. mechanism captured function, which takes arguments, property an event kind, returns kind participant function at work both (4). unification here compelling, I will return toward end.In 5, considers linguistic implementation function,2 6, he incorporates implicit domain restriction into account—something I'll also discuss below. In 7, argues his approach imply requires conceptual capacities. He account—first 8 forms sentences, 9 experience. concludes positive support adverbialism.In 10, provides new solution “many properties problem” facing adverbialism, 11, theory deals variety phenomena, illusion hallucination our ability gain knowledge external world book closes, section 11.7, argument semantic undermines representationalism.I would now consider whether picture on offer capture (6).(6) cake good you.If right, having certain But way? According outlined above, be: On face it, odd result. One source oddness (6) don't seem be saying things look (good people? books?), but rather, cakes do. issue account (chap. 6). His semantics involves quantification over where there quantification, expect find restriction: phenomenon whereby sentence ‘Every chair broken’ used absolutely every broken but, say, office broken. Similarly, may experiences stimuli occur, rather occur.Some remains, however. situation know best worst decorated, vice versa. seems, still, upon observing beautifully decorated cake, express (6). it's false generally do their cake. Those, after all, messes, under current stipulation.3 Granted, using scenario false: could paraphrased ‘The good’. my point speak truly, conveying clearly semantics.Could some further help? Perhaps good-looking? Perhaps. just remains clarify qualification works, noncircular way.This arises cases, including himself mentions later book. 11.3, transparency experience: fact sometimes attend attending of. Along (very reasonable) explanation make sense transparency, brings up blurry vision. What experience? presumably (7).(7) scene you.Does stimuli? It's entirely clear amounts to.Note line doesn't cast doubt itself, ends being specified semantics. A convincing package combining corresponding pay attention (7). claim covering “Take any c. c?… proposition p ask question ‘look’ sentence: ‘What p?’” (123).4 backs off universal claim, citing (8) challenge.(8) Molly feels.He notes most plausible appeal feels, right (153–54). fair enough yet cover Let this, plea greater sentences—semantics that, has convinced likely congenial experience.The only supports (sec. 11.7). might explain features For content, easily why assessable accuracy: accurate case represents true. proposed (9a), ‘walks’ (9b), occur.(9) you. proud.Just (9a) so too, (9b) condition. thus preferable, holds, unified account. Representationalism well suited implausible Mary's content. better. Thus, its agent gives similar lines reasoning promising, them unifies events.While am sympathetic conclusion, out striking contrast between others with. obligatorily contains complement specifying looking. no requirement. To see notice (10b) still means agent, whereas (10a) stimulus.(10) *Mary you.5 walks.Does signal interesting nonlinguistic difference question? I'm sure. obligatoriness leaves room view essentially representational, extremely events—at least taking language guide.Breckenridge's surely interest readers philosophy perception language. potential audience broader, given intriguing philosophical methodology seriously window substantive issues about.For helpful feedback, thanks Melissa Fusco, Ethan Jerzak, Alex Kerr, Michael Watkins.