{"id":1972,"date":"2022-07-05T10:56:57","date_gmt":"2022-07-05T10:56:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2022\/07\/05\/on-the-grammar-of-taking\/"},"modified":"2022-07-05T10:56:57","modified_gmt":"2022-07-05T10:56:57","slug":"on-the-grammar-of-taking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2022\/07\/05\/on-the-grammar-of-taking\/","title":{"rendered":"On Perceptual ‘Taking’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ed writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Something to think about. \u201cI take an X to be a Y\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

This can be true when there is no Y. For example, I take a tree root to be a snake. There is a tree root, but no snake.<\/span><\/p>\n

But what about the other way round? I take a mirror image to be a person occupying the space behind the mirror, thinking it to be a window. In that case there is also no Y (because no such person) but is there an X? That is, does \u201cI take a mirror image to be a person\u201d imply that there is some X such that X is a mirror image and I take X to be a person?<\/span><\/p>\n

It is the \u2018ontological\u2019 (=referential) questions that interest me. I have never had any interest in epistemology. Is a mirror image a \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b9, a hoc aliquid<\/em>, a this-something?<\/span><\/p>\n

Over to you.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

BV:  I don't believe anyone who knows English would ever say, 'I take a tree root to be a snake' as opposed to 'I took<\/em> a tree root to be a snake.'  If you see something that you believe to be a tree root, then you cannot<\/em> at the same time take it to be a snake.  If, on the other hand, if you take something to be a snake, and further perception convinces you that it is a tree root, then you can say, 'I took<\/em> a tree root to be a snake.'<\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose we try to describe such a situation phenomenologically. I am hiking in twilight through rattlesnake country. I suddenly stop, and shout to my partner, "I see a snake!" People say things like this. What we have here is a legitimate ordinary language use of 'see.'  Sometimes, when people say 'I see a snake,' there is\/exists a snake that they see.  Other times, when people say, 'I see a snake,' it is not the case that there is\/exists a snake that they see.  In both cases they see something. This use of 'see' is neutral on the question whether the seen exists or does not exist. Call this use the phenomenological use. It contrasts with the 'verb of success use' which is also a legitimate ordinary language use. On the success use, if subject S sees X, it follows that X exists.  On this use of 'see,' one cannot see what does not exist. On the phenomenological use, if S sees X, it does not follow that X exists. Mark the two senses as sees<\/sub><\/em>  and see<\/em>p<\/em> <\/sub>respectively.<\/span><\/p>\n

I seep<\/sub> a snake. But as I look more closely the initial episode of seeing is not corroborated by further such episodes. The snake appearance of the first episode is cancelled. By 'appearance' I mean the intentional object of the mental act of seeingp<\/sub>. This appearance (apparent item)  is shown to be a merely<\/em> intentional object. How? By the ongoing process of visual experiencing. The initial snake appearance (apparent item) is cancelled because of its non-coherence with the intentional objects of the subsequent perceptual acts. The subsequent mental acts present  intentional objects  that have some of the properties of a tree root. As the perceptual process continues through a series of  visual acts the intentional objects of which cohere, the perceiver comes to believe that he is veridically perceiving a tree root. He then says, "It wasn't a snake I saw after all; I took<\/em> a tree root to be a snake!" <\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly, I saw something, something that caused me to halt. If I had seen nothing, then I would not have halted. But the something I saw turned out not to exist.<\/span><\/p>\n

So my answer to your concluding question is in the affirmative.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, if you have no interest in epistemology, then you have no interest in the above question since it is an epistemological question concerning veridical and non-veridical knowledge of the external world via outer perception.<\/span><\/p>\n

You are some kind of radical externalist.  But how justify such an extreme position? <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ed writes, Something to think about. \u201cI take an X to be a Y\u201d. This can be true when there is no Y. For example, I take a tree root to be a snake. There is a tree root, but no snake. But what about the other way round? I take a mirror image to … Continue reading “On Perceptual ‘Taking’”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,528,353,492],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intentionality","category-internalism-externalism","category-knowledge","category-perception"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}