Perception First Form of Mind Tyler Burge All Chapter

Perception: First Form of Mind Tyler
Burge
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/perception-first-form-of-mind-tyler-burge/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/03/22, SPi
Perception
Perception
First Form of Mind
T Y L E R BU R G E
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Tyler Burge 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021942146
ISBN 978–0–19–887100–2 (hbk.)
ISBN 978–0–19–887101–9 (pbk.)
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198871002.001.0001
Printed and bound in the UK by
TJ Books Ltd
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1: Iris Murdoch, Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature,
© 1950, 1951, 1952, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1969, 1970, 1972,
1977, 1978, 1986, 1997 by Iris Murdoch. Used by permission of Penguin Books, an imprint
of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights
reserved.
Chapter 3: Stephen E. Palmer, Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology, The MIT Press,
1999, p. 32.
Chapter 6: W.G. Sebald, translated by Michael Hulse, from The Rings of Saturn, © 1995 by
Vito von Eichborn GmbH & Co Verlag KG. Translation © 1998 by The Harvill Press.
Reprinted by permission of New Directions Publishing Corp.
Chapter 11: William Blake, Notebook, British Library Add MS 49460, 3rd and 4th lines
from first draft of the poem.
Chapter 16: Excerpt from Vladimir Nabokov, Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited
© 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1967 by Vladimir Nabokov. Used by permission of
Alfred A. Knopf, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of
Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved.
Chapter 19: Hans Moravec, Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence,
© 1988 by Hans Moravec. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Contents
Preface xi
Animal Eyes xxi
Figures xxii
Abbreviations xxiv
PA RT I . P E R C E P T IO N
1. Introduction 3
Biological Function, Action, Sensing, and Perception—The Emergence of Mind 3
Principal Aims of the Book 10
The Fregean Source of Key Semantical Notions for Perception 15
2. Perception 19
Perceptual States as Sensory States 20
Representation and Information Registration 21
Representation and Veridicality Conditions 28
Representations and Representational Contents 30
The Three Fundamental Representational Constituents in Perceptual States 36
The Basic Representational Form of Perceptual States 49
Perception as Objectification 50
Perceptual Constancy—First Mark of Representational Mind 60
3. Perceptual Constancy: A Central Natural Psychological Kind 64
Scientific Practice Demarcates Perceptual Constancies from
Other Invariances 65
Two Misguided Ways of Thinking About Perceptual Constancies 70
Even Non-Perceptual Invariances Contribute to the Fitness of Individuals
that Sense 74
Efference Copy: An Example of a Non-Perceptual Invariance 76
Path Integration: Another Non-Perceptual Invariance 78
Very Simple Perceptual Color and Lightness Constancies 80
Retinal Image Contour Registration and Surface Contour Perception 82
Visual Spatial Property and Relation Constancies 90
Visual Body Categorization 91
Visual Spatial Perceptual Constancies and Body Categorization 94
Visual Temporal Perceptual Constancies 99
PA RT I I . F O R M
4. Some Basics about Perceptual Systems 109

Principles Governing Transitions Contrasted with Representational Contents 109
Perception, Computation, and the Language-of-Thought Hypothesis 111
Representational-Dependence Hierarchies in Perceptual Attribution 118
Two Methodological Points About Natural-Kind and Functional Attributives 120
Taxonomic Hierarchies in Perception 124
viii contents
5. Perceptual Reference Requires Perceptual Attribution 131

Basic Form of Perceptual Contents 131
Perceptual Reference is Partly Guided by Perceptual Attribution 133
Support for (AA1) 134
Support for (AA2) 143
General Remarks on Attributives and Perceptual Discrimination 146
Criticism of Two Attempted Rejections of (AA1) and (AA2) 148
6. Form and Semantics of Representational Contents of Perceptual States 156
Review of Basic Form of Perceptual Representation 156
Perception of Property-Instances 159
Betokening and Four Types of Perceptual Attribution 169
Perceptual Attribution of Relations 175
Scope Hierarchies in Perceptual Content 179
Scope and Modificational Attribution Hierarchy 185
Absence in Perception of Negations, Conditionals, Disjunctions,
Quantifiers 190
Perceptual Contents, Propositions, and Noun Phrases 201
7. Perceptual Attributives and Referential Applications in Perceptual
Constancies 208
Perceptual Constancies and Frege’s Sense–Bedeutung Distinction: Similarities 208
Perceptual Constancies and Frege’s Sense–Bedeutung Distinction:
Differences 213
Minimalism: Defocus and Color Constancy 214
Minimalism and Iconic Representation in a Spatial Coordinate System 219
Perceptual Units in Packages in Iconic Visual Spatial Representation 233
Linkage of Different Perceptual Attributives in Perceptual Constancies 237
The Form of Perceptual Attributives in Linkages 241
Accuracy Conditions for Perceptual Attributives in Perceptual Constancies 244
Referential Applications in Accuracy Conditions for Tracking Particulars 248
8. Egocentric Indexing in Perceptual Spatial and Temporal Frameworks 255
Egocentric Spatial Indexes in Perception 255
Egocentric Temporal Frameworks and Perceptual Representation of Motion 264
Is Temporal Representation Constitutive to Perceptual Representation? 275
9. The Iconic Nature of Perception 293
Noun-Phrase-Like Structure and Iconic Representation in Perception 296
Iconic Aspects of Perceptual Spatial Representation 304
Temporal, Qualitative, and Packaging Iconic Aspects of Visual Perception 312
Iconic Visual Perception and Maps or Pictures 314
Some Ways Not to Think about Iconic Representation 315
Iconic Perception, Iconic Concepts, Iconic Representation in Propositional
Thought 331
Part–Whole Representation in Pictures and Visual Perception 334
Compositionality in Iconic Perceptual Representation 347
Spatial Mapping in Visual Perception Again: The Non-Planar Surface
of the Scene 350
Relations Between Iconic Format and Representational Content 355
The Tractability of Iconic Attributional Complexity 360
contents ix
PA RT I I I . F O R M AT IO N
10. First-Formed Perception: Its Richness and Autonomy 367

What are First-Formed Perceptual States Like?: Three Limitative Views 367
Framework 372
Marr’s 2½-D Sketch 378
Change Detection 380
Treisman’s Binding Theory 383
Two Lines of Empirical Criticism of Treisman’s Theory 391
Philosophical Views Influenced by Treisman’s Binding Theory 401
Two Types of First-Formed Perception 405
11. Intra-Saccadic Perception and Recurrent Processing 409
Two Changes in Scientific Understanding of Perception-Formation 409
Some Main Brain Areas Involved in Visual Processing 413
Timing of Visual Processing; Some Main Types of Representation 420
Categorization and Timing 423
Levels of Specificity in Perceptual Categorization 427
Perceptual Constancies in Categorization Processing 431
12. Further Attributives: Primitive Attribution of Causation, Agency 433
Methodology for Finding Perceptual Attributives 433
Primitive Attribution of Mechanical Causation 446
Primitive Attribution of Agency 466
Attribution of Further Structural Elements of Agency 475
PA RT I V. SYS T E M
13. Perceptual-Level Representation and Categorization 483

Perceptual Categorization is Perceptual 487
Richer Perceptual Categorization and Perceptual Processing that
Contributes to It 493
14. Conation: Relatively Primitive, Perceptually Guided Action 502
Action Imperialism 502
Relatively Primitive Action 504
Form of Relatively Primitive Conative States 508
Broader Structure of Conation in Causing Relatively Primitive Action 512
Summary: Philosophical Issues 526
15. Perceptual Attention 531
Forms of Perceptual Attention 532
Attention and Accuracy 537
Sources and Levels of Attention 545
Perceptual-Level Attention Commands and Guidance of Saccades 547
The Executive Control System and Propositional Drivers 556
Supra-Perceptual Effects on Perceptual-Level Operations: An Example 565
16. Perceptual Memory I: Shorter Term Systems 567
Perceptual Memory and Consciousness 569
Priming and Memory 570
x contents
Visual Sensory Memory 572

Fragile Visual Short-Term Memory 575
Trans-Saccadic Memory 576
Visual Working Memory 584
Conceptual Short-Term Memory 599
17. Perceptual Memory II: Visual Perceptual Long-Term Memory 609
Overview 609
Ability-General Long-Term Visual Perceptual Memory 613
Episodic Visual Memory; De Re Long-Term Non-Episodic Visual Memory 619
Perceptual and Conceptual Attributives in Long-Term Memory 622
Summary of Relations Among Major Types of Visual Perceptual Memory 623
18. Perceptual Learning, Perceptual Anticipation, Perceptual Imagining 625
Perceptual Learning 625
Perceptual Anticipation 630
Perceptual Imagining 641
19. Perception and Cognition 647
The Original Epistemic Grounds for Reflecting on Cognitive Influence
on Perception 649
Fodor and Pylyshyn’s Conceptions of Modularity; The Visual System
as a Module 655
Uses and Misuses of the Term ‘Cognition’ 662
The Issue of Cognitive Penetration 677
Framework Issues 680
Conceptions of Penetration 684
The Cognitive Penetration Controversy 693
A Computational Construal of Modularity 701
Psychological Systems and Psychological Kinds 710
The Empiricist Model of Perception and Conception: Degrees of Abstraction 714
What Should Count as Cognition? 722
20. Conclusion 735
Emergence of Representational Mind 735
Empirical Characteristics of First-Formed Perceptions 738
Changes in the Science; Reading the Changes Philosophically 740
Perception: Form and Representational Content 744
Perception: The Seed of New Things to Live and Die For 746
Bibliography 749
Author Index 813
Subject Index 839
Preface
This book is not the one that I set out to write over twelve years ago. I had intended to fol-
low Origins of Objectivity with an account of what is distinctive about the main represen-
tational capacity more advanced than perception. I thought, and still think, that that
capacity is propositional representation. I took some steps in that direction in the Petrus
Hispanus Lectures, Lisbon, 2009, and the Nicod Lectures, Paris, 2010, and developed an
argument for connecting propositionality, constitutively, with propositional deductive
inference. I remain interested in that other book, and hope to complete it. But it was
pre-empted.
In writing a lead-up to discussing propositional capacities, I wanted to elaborate an
account of perception. Perception is, I think, the first representational capacity to evolve. It
is the main pre-propositional representational capacity. The lead-up was intended to be a
relatively concise refinement of the account of perception in the last chapters of Origins of
Objectivity, a refinement that now occupies approximately Chapters 1–3 of this book.
I became interested in vision just before I spent a semester teaching at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1982. My interest resulted in part from reading David
Marr’s important book, Vision. Although Marr died before I arrived at MIT, I audited
courses in perceptual psychology by Marr’s former colleagues during the visit. I later wrote
some articles on vision and made it a central theme of Origins of Objectivity (2010).
During work on that book and later, I benefitted from discussions of vision science with
my son, Johannes Burge, who is currently a vision scientist at the University of
Pennsylvania. After 2010, I came to understand the science more thoroughly, and devel-
oped ideas about structural and semantical issues associated with perception. I did so
through giving a series of graduate seminars at University of California Los Angeles
(UCLA), and through discussing the science with various scientists—especially in person
with David Brainard, Bill Geisler, and Shimon Ullman, and via correspondence with
Jeffrey Schall and Yaffa Yeshurun—and with Ned Block, one of few philosophers who ser
iously engages with the science. In writing the refinement of the Origins account of visual
perception, I soon realized that I had too much material to present in a run-up to another
topic, in a single book. The preliminary became the whole.
The book is about first form of representational mind. I take perception to be the most
primitive type of representational mind. Relevant first form is three-fold.
One type of first form is the representational structure of perception. Here, first form is
the first representational form that emerges in the evolution of representational mind.
This form is center-stage in Chapters 1–9. I had the main ideas about this structure when I
wrote Origins, but I discovered much more in thinking through its details, applying it to
cases, developing a semantics for it, and reflecting on how it is embedded in the iconic
format of perception.
A central theme in the book, centered in Parts I and II, is developing the foundations
for a systematic semantics for perceptual states. Perceptual psychology takes perceptual
states to be accurate or inaccurate. One of its main aims is to explain, causally, how
xii preface
accurate and inaccurate perceptual states are formed. It has, however, paid little attention
to explaining what it is for such states to be accurate or inaccurate, or to reflecting on how
representational capacities combine to yield a form of representation. Nor have these
issues been related to the obvious iconic nature of perceptual representation. I take steps
toward remedying this situation. In the course of doing so, I think that I have discovered
some basic aspects of attribution, the root of predication. Predication in language and
thought has been a longstanding topic of philosophical reflection, beginning with Aristotle
and Kant, and developing mainly in Frege, but also in Tarski and Strawson. Traditionally,
the topic has been pursued by reflection on logic. I have found it enlightening to reflect on
its roots in perception.
The second type of first form of representational mind is the first-formed states in the
order of perceptual processing. What is the nature of the perceptual states that are formed
fastest? What properties in the environment do they represent? What sort of processing
leads to them? There are empirical answers to these questions, at least for mammalian
vision. These answers provide a starting point for reflecting on what the fastest-formed
perceptual states are like in lower animals and even in evolutionary history. Of course,
each species must be considered on its own. I do not much discuss lower animals, nor do I
provide an evolutionary account, although I occasionally comment on those topics. This
second type of first form is center-stage in Chapters 10–11. Issues about later-formed per-
ceptual representations, such as those used in perceptual recognition of individuals, and
perhaps for causation, agency, and functional attributes, such as mate or edible, are
touched on in Chapter 12.
The third type of first form of representational mind is a natural-kind system of repre-
sentational capacities, with perception at the representational center of the system. The
systems that I highlight are the visual-perceptual system and the visuo-motor system.
The two systems intersect and overlap. What it is to be part of these systems is the
central theme of Part IV, Chapters 13–19. I believe that perception shares its representa-
tional structure and content, outlined in Chapters 2–12, with several other representational
capacities. Generically, the capacities are conation, attention-initiation, memory, affect,
learning, anticipation, and imagining. I think that the listed generic capacities have
perceptual-level species—species that have representational structures and contents that are
essentially those of perception. These capacities differ from perception in mode (memory
vs. perception) and transition-operations, not in form or content. The notion of represen-
tational level is explained in Chapter 1, the section The Principal Aims of the
B ook, and again, more fully, at the beginning of Chapter 13.
Perceptual-level species of the listed capacities share attributional content with percep-
tion. They share attributional and iconic structure with perception. And they involve
operations or transformations that are either similar to those in perception-formation
itself, or at least not more sophisticated than they are. These sub-species join with percep-
tion to form two large, natural-kind psychological systems—the perceptual system and
the perceptual-motor system. These systems are unified (a) in sharing a function (contrib-
uting to perception in the first case, contributing to perceptually guided action in the sec-
ond), and (b) in sharing the representational structure of perception. They are also unified
(c) in using only representational attributive contents in or borrowed from perception;
and (d) in being held together by computational causal processes both within perception
and between perception and the perceptual-level species of the listed generic capacities.
preface xiii
Again, the relevant perceptual-level species are perception-guided conation, perceptual-

attention initiations (or attention commands), perceptual memory, perceptual affect, per-
ceptual learning, perceptual anticipation, and perceptual imagining.
I think that these two large, overlapping systems—the perceptual system and the
perceptual-motor system—constitute the natural-kind center of lower representational
mind. I conjecture that variants of these systems, sometimes perhaps omitting one or two
of the auxiliary capacities—such as perceptual imagining—or adding other auxiliary
capacities—like amodal mapping—occur in all animal perceivers, from insects to human
beings. These systems and the perceptual-level capacity-species are discussed in Chapters
13–19, focusing on visual perception and visually guided action.
The three notions of first form are associated with the general plan of the book. Parts I
and II discuss what perception is. Part III centers on how perception works—how it is
formed and the nature and scope of its processing. Part IV treats relations between per-
ception and satellite capacities, and wherein they form a unified perceptual system and
perceptual-motor system.
A further theme runs through nearly all parts of the book. The theme is opposition—
sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit—to a way of thinking about perception started by
the classical empiricists, Locke and Hume. In trying to understand the main features of
perception, this approach takes too seriously intuitive groupings and senses of similarity
via introspection of conscious perceptual experience. It also errs by distinguishing percep-
tion from conception primarily in terms of differences in abstraction. Perception is sup-
posed to operate toward the concrete end. Conception, toward the abstract end. The
spectrum is intuitive—not very carefully explained. My opposition is centered in reflect-
ing on the explanatory practice of perceptual psychology. It also derives from reflecting on
the form, content, function, capacities, and uses that turn up in systematic explanation—
causal and semantical.
As with language, so with perception, understanding representational form and content
depends not on introspection of intuitively salient features of the vehicle of representation
(sentence or image-like-representation), but on competencies that underlie use of the rep-
resentation. Intuitive reflection on sentential structure would treat it as linear and as simply
being composed of a string of words. Reflection, in logic and linguistics, informed by sys-
tematic consideration of sentential use, reveals a hierarchical structure with words forming
phrase units that are not immediately obvious to intuition. Finding representational struc-
ture in perception is parallel. It depends not primarily on introspection of conscious per-
ceptual images, but on systematic reflection on the capacities evinced in uses and
transformations of perceptions. This reflection must consider the representational func-
tions of perception and the structures of capacities discovered in empirical science. Most of
what there is to be understood about perception is unconscious. All operations that lead to
perceptions are unconscious, and there are many unconscious perceptions. Moreover, given
the way in which perceptual discriminative capacities, and their use in guiding action, are
molded, in evolution and learning, by perceiver-needs and by frequently unobvious causal
and statistical patterns in the environment, one cannot rely on introspection of images,
and intuitive types of image-similarity to understand perception—even the iconic, broadly
image-like character of vision. Perceptual grouping does not in general conform to intuitive
image-similarity. Yet all perceptual groupings are grounded, at least partly, in shape-size-
motion attributions, plotted iconically in an image-like way in perceptual representation.
xiv preface
The book is resolutely a work in philosophy of science—specifically philosophy of

psychology. Perceptual psychology, centrally the psychophysics of vision, has become a
mature science in the last fifty years. It gives philosophy an opportunity to understand
important features of psychological capacities at a level of depth, rigor, and empirical
groundedness that has never before been attainable. Philosophy should leap at the oppor-
tunity to make use of such a powerful and rapidly advancing science, as a basis for philo-
sophical understanding. Some philosophy of perception makes no use at all of perceptual
psychology. Much philosophy of perception makes at best decorative use. I think that it is
no longer intellectually responsible to philosophize about perception without knowing
and seriously engaging with that science. I believe that the practice of centering philo-
sophical reflection about perception on phenomenology, or on analysis of ordinary talk
about perception, without closely connecting the reflection with what is known from sci-
ence (a centering that is a residue of the early empiricist model of perception), and the
practice of allowing epistemology to guide reflection on what perception must be like, will
all soon become museum pieces of past, misdirected philosophy.
Most of the book’s claims are, of course, supported only empirically, by interpreting the
empirical results of the science. Some of the claims are, however, supported apriori. One
should not confuse apriority with innateness, certainty, obviousness, infallibility, dogma-
tism, unrevisability, or immunity from revision based on empirical considerations. To
be apriori supported, or apriori warranted, is to have support or warrant that does not
depend for its force on perception or on sensing. Most apriori warranted judgments in
this book are warranted by reflection that yields understanding of key concepts or prin
ciples used or presupposed in the science. All the relevant apriori judgments are synthetic,
certainly in the sense of being non-vacuous and the sense of not being truths of logic.
I think that the judgments are also synthetic in the sense of not being the products of ana
lysis of conceptual complexes into concepts contained in the complexes. I think that most
concepts that are central to our discussion are not complexes. They are simple. They are,
however, necessarily and apriori embedded in networks with other concepts. Reasoning
through such networks sometimes yields synthetic apriori understanding of foundations
of mind.
Apriori supported judgments can be further supported empirically, by the science. But
insofar as they are apriori warranted, they have sufficient warrant to support belief; and
the warrant derives from reasoning or understanding, independently of support from per-
ception, perceptual experience, or sensory registration. An example of an apriori war-
ranted judgment, I think, is that perceptual states can be accurate or inaccurate. Another
example is that perceptual states have a representational function—to accurately pick out
and characterize particulars via causal relations to them: perceptual states fail in some way
(representationally) if they are not accurate. I doubt that one can know apriori that any
individual has perceptual capacities. Our empirical knowledge that we do have such
capacities is, however, firm. It is more certain than some things that we know apriori about
perception. As noted, being apriori does not imply some super-strong type of support.
Apriori warrant for belief in simple arithmetical truths is super-strong. But much apriori
support is not stronger, often less strong, than strong empirical support.
Our firm empirical knowledge that individuals have perceptual states does not require a
detailed, reflective, philosophical understanding of what perception is. Knowing that indi-
viduals have perceptual states requires only a minimal understanding. One must be able to
preface xv
distinguish perception, at least by some cases, from just any sensing. And one must be able
to recognize various examples of perception. Detailed philosophical understanding
requires reflection, articulation, and elaboration of a minimal understanding of the con-
cept perception and of relations between perception and other matters—semantical, func-
tional, biological, causal, and so on. Elaboration is mainly empirical, but partly apriori. Given
an elaborated understanding of what perception is, it is possible to draw, apriori, some fur-
ther conclusions about the form, semantics, and functions of perceptual states. Such con-
clusions are abstract and limited. They are important in being basic to understanding.
Again, most of the book’s claims are empirical. For example, the accounts of how per-
ceptual and perceptual-motor systems work in Parts III and IV, and the accounts of what
these systems are in Part IV, are warranted partly by appeal to explanations in the science.
Those accounts and those explanations are certainly empirically, not apriori, warranted.
I became interested in perception partly because it promises insight into basic types of
representation of the world, and partly because it is a key factor that must be understood if
one is to understand empirical knowledge. This book shows some fruits of the first motiv
ation. In investigating the structure and semantics of perceptual representation, one inves-
tigates primitive and basic types of reference and attribution. My interest in the role of
perception in empirical knowledge remains. But I take understanding perception to owe
almost nothing to epistemology, whereas understanding epistemology absolutely requires
understanding perception. Epistemology investigates epistemic norms for capacities that
can contribute to obtaining knowledge. One cannot understand the norms without under-
standing the capacities. One understands perceptual capacities by reflecting on empirical
science and its basic commitments, not by reflecting on epistemology. Understanding per-
ception is the task of this book. Epistemic use of an understanding of perception is poster
ior. For epistemic work in this direction, see my ‘Perceptual Entitlement’, Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 67 (2003), 503–548; and ‘Entitlement: The Basis for Empirical
Warrant’, in P. Graham and N. Pedersen eds., Epistemic Entitlement (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2020).
I have some slight hope, even in this specialized world, that this book will interest not
only philosophers, but at least some scientists in perceptual psychology and other areas of
psychology. The best science is informed by a breadth and depth of perspective that is
philosophical. This point is particularly relevant to perceptual psychology. A central, often
stated, aim of the science is to understand conditions in which accurate perception occurs,
and conditions under which illusions occur. (See Chapter 1, note 25.) Accuracy is a
semantical concept.
So the science is committed at its very core to there being a semantics for perception—a
systematic account of relations between perceptual representation and its subject matters.
The account must explain what it is for perception to be accurate or inaccurate. Of course,
the science is mainly concerned with causal patterns and mechanisms. Much of it, indeed
probably most of it to date, focuses on pre-representational, pre-perceptual states that
register the proximal stimulus. But the point of this scientific work is partly to build
toward understanding perception of the physical environment. Part of understanding per-
ception scientifically is to understand not only the causal patterns that lead to accurate
and inaccurate perception, but also to understand the form and content of perceptual
states, and what it is for them to be accurate or inaccurate.
xvi preface
Yet the science has paid no serious attention to these issues—specifically to semantics.
It has not developed a vocabulary or set of principles that enable it to discuss accuracy and
inaccuracy of perception with the precision and clarity of its accounts of causal, forma-
tional aspects of psychological states and processes. It provides no answers to questions
like ‘What is it for a perceptual state to be accurate or inaccurate?’, ‘What sorts of represen-
tational competencies are involved in forming a state that is accurate or inaccurate?’; ‘In
what ways can a perception be partly accurate and partly inaccurate?’; ‘What is the repre-
sentational form or structure of perceptual states?’. Such questions are addressed in Parts I
and II of the book.
Scientific understanding of perception is incomplete if it does not incorporate a system-
atic semantical understanding of perceptual states into its understanding of principles
according to which perceptual states are causally generated. Semantical understanding is
understanding of the representational contents, their forms, and their accuracy condi-
tions—the conditions for representational success. Perceptual psychology would benefit
from mastering the vocabulary necessary to think systematically about the semantics of
perception.
Philosophy is the source of modern work in semantics—first the semantics of mathem
atics and logic, later the semantics of natural language. The basic semantical concepts, in
something like their modern form, come from Gottlob Frege, about 130 years ago. In the
last section of Chapter 1, I explain some of Frege’s basic concepts. I think that these con-
cepts, with some modification, are valuable in understanding perception, even though
they were first developed for understanding much higher-level representation—represen-
tation in mathematics.
I think that parts of the science need not only a deeper grip on semantics, but a much
more rigorous terminology. Uses of terms like ‘representation’, ‘knowledge’, ‘cognition’,
‘recognition’, ‘judgment’, ‘belief ’, ‘concept’, ‘prediction’, ‘intention’, ‘voluntary’ are far from
reflective, much less standardized, in the science. Assimilating the whys and wherefores of
terminology, is often the beginning of better, more fruitful empirical inquiry. Centrally, in
Chapter 19, the section Uses and Misuses of the Term ‘Cognition’, but also
throughout the book, there is a concerted effort to emphasize sharper uses of key mental-
istic terms so as to respect basic differences in representational level. Such differences cor-
respond to important differences in representational kinds—that is, representational
capacities.
This is a long, complex book. Understanding anything well requires effort and patience.
Genuine philosophical and scientific understanding cannot be grabbed off the shelf. The
time and effort required to understand this book will be considerable. One cannot get
there in a few sittings. The key point is to read and reread carefully and slowly, noting and
reflecting on nuances and qualifications, mastering terminology, reading in context, con-
necting different contexts together, reading the footnotes, going back to earlier passages—
all the while, reflecting. Few readers outside philosophy ever read this way. Most
philosophers have, I think, lost the art. Iris Murdoch, in harmony with the marvelous
quote that heads Chapter 1, wrote: ‘In philosophy, the race is to the slow’. Too many race at
high speeds. The psychological and sociological pressures to form opinions and publish
them quickly, and often, are very strong. Academic pressures and computer fluency have
yielded much more writing, with no more time to master the increasingly complex topics
written about. Careless reading, misdirected criticism, uninformed opinions, simplistic
preface xvii
proposals abound. Perhaps it was always so. However, as knowledge grows—and grows
more complex—lack of patience in pursuing understanding is an increasingly debilitating
vice. Given that philosophical understanding of this book’s topics has become harder—
because more is known and what is known is more complex—patience is more required
than ever.
For those who may have some interest in the book, but are not initially willing to invest
large of amounts of time in it, I set out a plan for getting some of the book’s gist. My hope
is that after achieving an overview, some readers will be tempted to go back for more—not
just noting fine points, but mastering the book’s conceptual framework and conceptual
intricacies.
For vision scientists, Parts I–II deal with the least familiar ideas—principally, the repre-
sentational form and semantics of perception. Part III and Chapters 13–18 in Part IV
mainly describe matters that many vision or visuo-motor scientists are familiar with,
although these passages cast those matters in a conceptual form that may be more unified
than specialized accounts provide. Chapter 19 of Part IV, supported by Chapters 13–18,
presents a large view of the visual system and visuo-motor system that uses perhaps famil-
iar empirical materials to develop a possibly less familiar, or more sharply articulated,
view of those systems as wholes.
For those, either vision scientists or others, who simply want to get a sense for the main
lines of thought, I offer the following, tentative guide.
I recommend, in Part I, the first two sections of Chapter 1 and all of Chapter 2. In
Chapter 3, I recommend the prologue and the section Retinal Image Contour
Registration and Surface Contour Perception. This section illustrates con-
cretely how I think perceptual constancies are distinguished from other invariances in
visual perception.
In Part II, I recommend the prologue at the beginning of Chapter 4, and the third and
fifth sections of the chapter (Representational-D ependence Hierarchies in
Perceptual Attribution and Taxonomic Hierarchies in Perception). In
Chapter 5, I recommend the first two sections (Basic Form of Perceptual
Contents and Perceptual Reference is Partly Guided by Perceptual
Attribution). In Chapter 6, I recommend the first three and the last of the sections
(Review of Basic Form of Perceptual Representation; Perception of
Property Instances; Betokening and Four Types of Perceptual
Attribution; and Perceptual Contents, Propositions, and Noun
Phrase). Chapter 7 gives the central account of the semantics of perception. This may be
hard to follow if one has skipped too much of the slow development of concepts that lead
up to it. The key section is the next- to-
last one (Accuracy Conditions for
Perceptual Attributives in Perceptual Constancies). Chapter 8 centers
on the way space and time are represented in visual perception. It can be skipped by those
not interested in details of perceptual representational structure. Chapter 9 connects basic
representational structure (the structure of reference and attribution) with the iconic form
of visual perception. The key sections are the first and the last two (Noun-P hrase-L ike
Structure and Iconic Representation in Perception; Relations
Between Iconic Format and Representational Content; and The
Tractability of Iconic Attributional Complexity).
xviii preface
In Part III, I recommend the prologue at the beginning of Chapter 10 and the first and
last sections of that chapter (What Are First-F ormed Perceptual States
Like?: Three Limitative Views and Two Types of First- F ormed
Perception). In Chapter 11, I recommend the prologue and the first section (Two
Changes in Scientific Understanding of Perception-F ormation). The
second section is a brief run-through of the course that visual processing takes in the
brain. The main points will be familiar to any vision scientist. The remaining sections pro-
vide basic facts about timing and about perceptual categorization. They may be skimmed
or skipped by those seeking only gist. All these sections in Chapter 11 are mainly descrip-
tive—with some improvements, I think, in conceptual rigor—of facts familiar to many
vision scientists. Chapter 12 has a methodological discussion of considerations that bear
on whether an attributive is, or should be, considered a perceptual attributive—an attribu-
tive, or characterizer, generated in the visual system (Methodology for Finding
Perceptual Attributives). That section tries to codify and state more precisely
methods already in place in the science.
Part IV treats the visual system at a level of generality far from the focused empirical
studies that make up most of the science. The prologue for Chapter 13 is recommended. It
sets the plan of Part IV. Readers trying for an overview can pick and choose within, or
skip, Chapters 13–18. These chapters discuss categorization, conation, attention, various
forms of short- term memory, long- term memory, affect, learning, anticipation, and
imagining. The chapters develop the idea that all these capacities have functions at the
representational level of perception. As noted, the notion of level is explained briefly in
Chapter 1 and in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 13. The chapters are part of an
extended argument that the perceptual-level functions and operations of these capacities
occur within the visual system or the visuo-motor system, in a specific sense of ‘occur
within’. Chapter 19 can be read by sampling the beginning of each section, then determin-
ing how much further to read. Chapter 19 uses work in Chapters 13–18 to develop the
idea that the perceptual system—for which the visual system is paradigmatic—and the
perceptual-motor system are lower representational mind. A proposal for understanding
the unity of lower representational mind is advanced in A Computational
Construal of Modularity. Although I explore some intermediate territory in
What Should Count as Cognition?, I think that lower representational mind
contrasts most dramatically with capacities for propositional inference and language, the
more primitive of which constitute the first capacities in upper representational mind. I
believe that the most important feature of upper representational mind is competence to
produce explanations. This capacity develops into science, moral thinking and practice,
and, most broadly, into understanding. The section The Empiricist Model of
Perception and Cognition: Degrees of Abstraction brings together criti-
cisms, which recur throughout the book, of an old way of thinking about the relation
between perception and thought that, while not prevalent in psychophysics of perception,
remains widespread in other parts of psychology and in philosophy. This section might be
useful to psychologists as well as philosophers. Chapter 20 summarizes main themes, and
concludes.
For valuable input, I am grateful to: Marty Banks, John Bartholdi, Blake Batoon, Ned
Block, David Bordeaux, David Brainard, Denis Buehler, Daniel Burge, Dorli Burge,
Johannes Burge, Susan Carey, Sam Cumming, Will Davies, Frank Durgin, Chaz Firestone,
preface xix
Julian Fischer, Bill Geisler, Katherine Gluer, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Peter Graham, Gabe
Greenberg, Michael Hansen, Catherine Hochman, Gabby Johnson, Nancy Kanwisher, Ed
Keenan, Philip Kellman, Ela Kotkowska, Bill Kowalsky, Kevin Lande, Hakwan Lau, Gavin
Lawrence, Yannig Luthra, Tony Martin, Peter Momtchiloff, Bence Nanay, Peter Pagin, Alexi
Patsaouras, Christopher Peacocke, Sam Pensler, Atthanasios Raftopoulos, Jacob Reid,
Michael Rescorla, Pieter Roelfsema, Jeffrey Schall, Brian Scholl, Wesley Seurat, Houston
Smit, Sheldon Smith, Irene Sperandio, Galen Strawson, Paul Talma, Shimon Ullman,
Tamar Weber, Fei Xu, Yaffa Yeshurun. Thanks also to three anonymous reviewers. The two
complex drawings, Figures 9.2 and 9.3, are by Bill Kowalsky, as are the other drawings,
except for one by Johannes Burge.
My immediate family—sons and wife—has supported and taken interest. I am espe-
cially grateful to my wife, Dorli, for patience in understanding her often distracted hus-
band and for helping me to look more carefully at the world, especially appreciating details
and finding joy in the beauties of little things.
Tyler Burge
Animal Eye Grid
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 22 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36
Animal eye grid credit lines: (1) Tarsier monkey, © nikpal/Getty Images; (2) Horse, © Magdalena Strakova/EyeEm/
Getty Images; (3) Cat, © Dobermaraner/Shutterstock.com; (4) Racing pigeon, © triocean/Getty Images;
(5) Red-eyed tree frog, © Mark Kostich/Getty Images; (6) Indian elephant, © Volanthevist/Getty Images; (7) Bearded
vulture, © Slowmotiongli/Dreamstime.com; (8) Robber fly, © suwich/Getty Images; (9) Blue-spotted pufferfish,
© Shahar Shabtai/Shutterstock.com; (10) Deer fly, © ekamelev/Unsplash; (11) Goat, © Tsuneya Kudoh/EyeEm/Getty
Images; (12) Iguana, © Gaschwald/Dreamstime.com; (13) Grey butterfly, © egor-kamelev/Pexels; (14) Emerald tree
boa, © George lepp/Getty Images; (15) Ant, © Visual&Written SL/Alamy Stock Photo; (16) Jumping Spider, © Razvan
Cornel Constantin/Dreamstime.com; (17) Discus Fish, © tunart/getty Images; (18) Tokay Gecko, © Spaceheater/
Dreamstime.com; (19) Octopus, © iStock.com/leventalbas; (20) Eurasian Eagle Owl, © GlobalP/Getty Images;
(21) Sumatran tiger, © ekamelev/Unsplash; (22) Human, © Tatiana Makotra/Shutterstock.com; (23) Chameleon,
© aluxum/Getty Images; (24) Bee, © ekamelev/Unsplash; (25) Chimpanzee, © Karl Ammann/Getty Images;
(26) Green tree python, © Zoran Kolundzija/Getty Images; (27) Finschs Imperial Pigeon, © Marc Dozier/Getty Images;
(28) Sparrowhawk, © Katie Kokoshashvili/Shutterstock.com; (29) California grey whale, © Michael S. Nolan/Alamy
Stock Photo; (30) Lion, © Ben Puttock/Alamy Stock Photo; (31) Northern harrier eagle, © Wildlife World/
Dreamstime.com; (32) Mantis shrimp, © Alex Permiakov/Shutterstock.com; (33) Napoleon wrasse fish, © ifish/Getty
Images; (34) Caiman crocodile, © Jonathan Knowles/Getty Images; (35) Fly, © egor-kamelev/Pexels; (36) Parrot,
© Couleur/Pixabay.
Animal Eyes
Figures
3.1. Geisler Contours 85

7.1. Drawings conveying the different modes of representation for the top edge and
side edges and their lengths in two orientations of the same surface, or two
orientations of two different but similarly sized and shaped surfaces 211
9.1. A sample surface made up of six smallest-discriminable cells 337
9.2. A model of the iconic representational content of a perceptual state representing
the 6-cell surface. 339
9.3. Depiction of a scene showing different points of view 353
10.1. Illustration of a simple example of the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP)
experimental paradigm. Source: M. Potter, B. Wyble, C. Hagmann, and E. McCourt,
‘Detecting Meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per Picture’ 393
11.1a. Diagrammatic section through the head, sketching major features of the main visual
pathway linking the eyes to the striate cortex (V1). Source: J.P. Frisby and J.V. Stone,
Seeing, second edition, figure 1.5, p. 4, © 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
by permission of The MIT Press 413
11.1b. Illustration of two visual pathways underneath the cortical areas of the brain.
Source: J.P. Frisby and J.V. Stone, Seeing, second edition, figure 1.6, p. 5, © 2010
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by permission of The MIT Press 414
11.2. Some main visual areas of the brain 416
12.1. The launching (top row) and entrainment (bottom row) effects, discovered
by Michotte 448
12.2. Habituated launching sequence and the same sequence in reverse 451
12.3. William Ball experimental paradigm 456
12.4. Causation and overlap 463
14.1. Important states in Relatively Primitive Action-Motor System 523
15.1. Sequence of display in each trial of flashed discs 538
15.2. A visibility map of a 15-degree-circumference-sized part of a retinal image.
Source: J. Najemnik and W. Geisler, ‘Simple Summation Rule for Optimal
Fixation Selection in Visual Search’, figure 2a, p1288, © 2009, with
permission from Elsevier 555
15.3a. Flow chart for computational program of Tsotsos and Kruijne for visual
discrimination task. Source: Adapted from J. Tsotsos and W. Kruijne, ‘Cognitive
Programs: Software for Attention’s Executive’, Figure 1, p. 4, open-access distributed
under the terms of the Creative Common Attribution License (CC BY) 559
15.3b. Abstract diagram of the structure of the functional components necessary to
support the executive control of attentive processing with information-passing
channels indicated in red arrows. Source: Adapted from J. Tsotsos and W. Kruijne,
‘Cognitive Programs: Software for Attention’s Executive’, Figures 5–6, p8,
open-access distributed under the terms of the Creative Common
Attribution License (CC BY) 559
figures xxiii
15.3c. Diagram of model for system of processing of visual executive-control system’s

(vAE’s) attention commands for visual task execution. Source: Adapted from
J. Tsotsos and W. Kruijne, ‘Cognitive Programs: Software for Attention’s
Executive’, Figures 5–6, p8, open-access distributed under the terms of the
Creative Common Attribution License (CC BY) 560
16.1. A typical Sperling test display 574
18.1. Examples of figures used in mental rotation experiments. Source: Adapted from
Roger N. Shepard and Lynn A. Cooper, Mental Images And Their Transformations,
figure, page 495, © 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology by permission
of The MIT Press 643
19.1. Causal analogy 727
Abbreviations
CSTM conceptual short-term memory

FEF frontal eye fields
FFA fusiform face area
FFE fast field echo
fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging
FVSTM fragile visual short-term memory
IT inferior temporal cortex
LGN lateral geniculate nucleus
LOT language of thought
LTM long-term memory
MST medial superior temporal area
MT middle temporal area / medial temporal cortex
ms millisecond
OFC orbital frontal cortex
PFC pre-frontal cortex
PHC para-hippocampal cortex
RC retrosplenial cortex
RDS random dot stereograms
RSVP rapid serial visual presentation
SM simple model
SOA stimulus onset asynchrony
TSM trans-saccadic memory
V1–V5 visual cortical areas
VLTM visual long-term memory
VWM visual working memory
WM working memory
PART I
PE RCE P T ION
1
Introduction
In philosophy, if you aren’t moving at a snail’s pace, you aren’t moving at all.
Iris Murdoch, Existentialists and Mystics
In the grand array of occupants of the universe, from sub-atomic particles through higher
animals, the animals with minds stand out as special. Some of the specialness derives from
our being in this group. We interest ourselves. This interest extends to animals like us.
The natural interest is grounded in more than self-interest. It is grounded in a deep
joint in nature—the joint between the minded and the mindless. The joint may be ragged.
It may have borderline cases. But it is real. It is relevant to matters of great value and
importance—science, understanding, morality, art. Without mind, none of these pursuits
or goods exist. They seem good independently of whether we engage with them. They
depend for being good on realizing functions of certain types of minds. The minded-
ness and the type of mind ground the goodness, not their being ours. My project is
understanding—understanding some central aspects of mind.
Understanding the mind–mindless joint requires understanding mind in its most basic
forms. Of course, mind depends on the mindless and makes use of it. Without the regularities
of organic chemistry, minds could not be minds. Without the regularities of the broader
macro-physical world, minds could not navigate through it. In many ways, the non-minded
physical world stamps itself into the very natures of mental states. In understanding mind,
however, it is important to understand what is new and different about it, at its most
elementary levels. Such understanding aids understanding richer forms that guide the
listed pursuits. Those pursuits are not possible where mind begins. They are not possible for
the first forms of mind. However, they depend on and employ these forms. A central aim of
this book is to understand forms of mind at this initial juncture—forms of perception.
Biological Function, Action, Sensing,

and Perception—The Emergence of Mind
Before mind emerged, another deep and interesting joint in nature had already developed.
Brief attention to this joint is valuable in understanding the joint on which mind hinges.
Most of the universe is fire, rock, or emptiness. Already with life, there is a momentous
difference. Life occupies small crevasses in the universe. However, it marks a large change
from the chemical mixes from which it emerged. Although the living share a material
basis with the non-living, the living comprise a genuinely new and different group of the
universe’s occupants.
The point is not just intuitive. It shows up in new terms and methods in the scientific
study of life. Notions of function, growth, reproduction, natural selection, adaptation,
Perception: First Form of Mind. Tyler Burge, Oxford University Press (2022). © Tyler Burge.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198871002.003.0001
4 Introduction
life-cycles, ecology have no place in physics or chemistry. They are central to biology. The
historical study of evolution and a lesser emphasis on law, are foreign to physics and
chemistry. These scientific differences signal subject-matter differences. The living are
very different from the rest.
A key aspect of life, lacking in the lifeless natural world, is function. Rock and fire have
no functions in themselves. Biological functions are patterns of operation whose existence
derives from their contributions to success in reproduction.1 The function of photo-
synthesis is to convert light energy into chemical energy that subsequently is transformed
in a way that feeds an organism’s other operations. The process exists in plants and other
organisms because it contributed to their reproduction. It was naturally selected.
Like other types of function, biological function is conceptually linked with doing well,
being successful. These types of goodness are not moral, or products of plans or purposes.
They are good for the system, or individual, or species, because they aid survival long
enough to reproduce. Being a biological function is an objective matter: functions are
what they are independently of whether anyone recognizes them. They are open to object
ive evaluation, even scientific evaluation, by rational standards. Whether and to what
degree a process fulfills one of its functions can be empirically assessed. Either a process
functions well or it does not.
Some functions are attributable to plants and animals as whole organisms. Others are
attributed only to subsystems or parts of a plant or animal. For example, functions to grow
and reproduce are functions of the whole plant. By contrast, production of pollen grains is
a function of the anther in a plant’s flower. Photo-synthesis is an operation in each indi-
vidual cell. The whole plant, its sub-systems, and its parts can succeed or fail in realizing
their functions.
Functional processing in plants responds in ways sensitive to the environment. Photo-
synthesis depends on features of the plant that are specialized to be sensitive to light.
Photo-synthesis yields responses, such as directional growth, that depend on chemical
reactions in the plant that transform the light’s energy into chemical energy. These are
antecedents of sensing and action that occur in animals. I think it well to follow common
sense in thinking that these are not strictly cases of sensing or acting. I say that plants are
sensitive to the environment, whereas animals sense it. Animals, but not plants, act.
Directional growth and pollination are not actions. A plant’s absorption of water and
nutrients is not drinking or eating. The Venus Fly Trap’s engulfing of visitors is not eating.
I conjecture that this is so because the relevant changes in the plant can be too easily
1 This conception of biological function derives from L. Wright, ‘Functions’, The Philosophical Review 82
(1973), 139–168. There are other, compatible notions of function that figure in biology. I use Wright’s because
it is familiar, explanatory, and teleological. Other conceptions of function in biology also take teleology ser
iously and are not as centered in evolutionary history—so-called organizational conceptions. A revision of the
Wright account of function, which I think of as an expansion of it, rather than purely a correction of it, cen
ters on any contributions to reproduction within a living system, rather than purely on original-etiological
contributions. For excellent work on this conception of function, see G. Schlosser, ‘Self-Reproduction and
Functionality: A Systems- Theoretical Approach to Teleological Explanation’, Synthese 16 (1998), 303–354;
W. Christensen and M. Bickhard, ‘The Process Dynamics of Normative Function’, The Monist 85 (2002), 3–28;
M. Mossio, C. Saborido, and A. Moreno, ‘An Organizational Account of Biological Functions’, British Journal
of Philosophy of Science 60 (2009), 813–841; M. Mossio and L. Bich, ‘What Makes Biological Organization
Teleological?’, Synthese 194 (2017), 1089–1114. See also J. Garson, A Critical Overview of Biological Functions
(Dordrecht: Springer, 2016). Although I use Wright’s notion, the notion of biological function that I rely on does
not need to be specific enough to choose between these conceptions. Any scientifically based explanatory notion
of teleology will suffice.
Biological Function, Sensing, and Perception 5
explained in terms of summations of changes that occur in plant cells. There is no need to
postulate a central locus of conation, as we do for agents.
Some speak metaphorically, even poetically, of sensing and acting by plants. Some sci-
entists like to say that plants communicate with one another. Perhaps there is a broad
enough notion of communication to allow such talk to be non-metaphorical. I believe that
any such communication is not action. Calling functional, cross-individual patterns of
sensitivity and response among plants’ “communication” serves advertisement more than
understanding. True understanding depends more here on exploring differences than on
engaging in assimilation.
I think that serious conceptual and scientific investigation of these matters will confirm
some variant of what common sense assumes. Plants may communicate. They do not act.
Some or all animals, and perhaps other organisms that are neither plants nor animals, do.
I think that action has to do with a coordination among central capacities of an
organism—typically, but not necessarily, endogenously causing movement by the individual.2
As noted, I conjecture that plants do not act, because their changes derive not from a central
coordinating capacity, but from a mere aggregation of changes in plant parts. Photo-synthesis
occurs in every plant cell. Growth is not action partly because it is a summation of aggre-
gate increases in various cells. Directionality in growth stems from the fact that more
stimulated cells multiply faster. Plants are sensitive to light. Relevant stimulation for
growth is often from light. Plants grow toward the light. Directional growth is an aggregate
response of changes in the plant’s most stimulated cells. This is not action. Similarly, for
absorption of water and nutrients. Such absorption is not drinking or eating. These points
are at best a gesture at a position on a complicated topic.
I take the notion of sensing, as distinct from that of sensitivity, to be tied to action.
Plants are sensitive to stimuli. Animals sense stimuli. Sensing and action emerge
together.3
The distinction between plant responses and animal (or other organisms) action is not
central to the present project. It is background. What I have pointed to is a broad analogy
between plant sensitivity and functional growth-like responses, on one hand, and animal
sensing and functional behavioral responses that include action, on the other.
The sensing-action nexus is very old, older than the emergence of mind. Organisms
that surely lack minds—paramecia, simple worms, snails—act. They eat, swim, or crawl.
They depend on elementary sensing capacities in fulfilling these activities’ functions.
Here again, biological functions of the organism are to be distinguished from biological
functions of organs and operations within the organism. For example, eating, mating,
swimming, crawling, and navigating are biological functions of the whole animal. All
meet earlier-discussed conditions for being a biological function. All depend for being
functional on the well-functioning operation of biological systems or organs within the
organism. For example, eating’s fulfilling its function depends on the well-functioning
operation of a digestive system. The whole-animal functions are relevant to understanding
success and failure for the whole animal, not just sub-systems or sub-parts of the animal.
Acting and sensing are functional pursuits at the level of the whole animal. They form the
womb out of which basic forms of mind are born.
2 See T. Burge, Origins of Objectivity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), chapter 8.
3 I advance this conjecture in Origins of Objectivity, 376–377; see also 331–334.
6 Introduction
Philosophical tradition has come to a broad consensus on the most general marks of
mind. They are consciousness and representation.4 Thought and perception—both of which
are types of representation—can be conscious or unconscious. Consciousness, I think,
can be either representational or not. A representational state like a perception can,
obviously, be conscious. A feel of a pain or a tickle can, I think, be distinguished from a
proprioceptive representation of its location. Such feels are conscious, but not in them-
selves representational in the ordinary sense of representation—the sense that I will refine
and develop.
This book focuses on representation, not consciousness. I take perceptual representa-
tion to be a basic mark of mind and a mark of nature’s mind–mindless joint. This view
does not compete with the idea that consciousness is also a basic mark of mind. There may
be two joints in nature between minds and the mindless. Many minds are both representa-
tional and at some times conscious. But it may be that there are conscious beings that do
not represent and representational beings that are not conscious. I focus on the first mark
of mind—representation. Vastly more is known about it. The science of consciousness is in
its gestation stage. The science of perceptual representation is in its early maturity.
There is no consensus about how consciousness and representation are related in being
marks of mind. The issue is complicated by the fact that there are importantly different
historical understandings of the putative subject matter here—mind. The notions of mind,
psyche, soul, psychological system, and so on, each has different historical associations.
I ignore nuance here, in the interests of providing a broad-brushed setting for the main
project. I think that having consciousness and having representation are each sufficient for
having a mind.
Neither is by itself necessary for having a mind. An animal that feels pain—and hence is
conscious—has a mind. It may or may not have a capacity to represent, in the sense
of ‘represent’ that will occupy us. For example, it may or may not have perceptual states.
An animal that perceives, and hence represents, has a mind. It may or may not be capable
of consciousness.
So I think that representation and consciousness are in principle separable. Each is a
mark of mind.5 It follows that there could be two paths to mind in the evolution of
animals—one through consciousness, one through representation. If one wants to distin-
guish mind—marked by consciousness—from psychology—marked by representation—,
I have no strong objection. Then there may be minds without psychologies, and psycholo-
gies without minds. I do not, however, write in these ways. I do sometimes write of con-
scious mind or representational mind.
I assume that the two marks of mind—consciousness and representation—are each suf-
ficient for having mind. Having at least one is necessary. Neither is by itself necessary.
Of course, many animals that are conscious are capable of representation, and many
animals capable of representation are conscious. All higher animals, certainly all
4 What I call ‘representation’ is often called ‘intentionality’. I think that the latter term is historically associated
with unclear thinking about representation, and is best discarded. I mean ‘representation’ here in a specific
restricted sense, developed in Chapter 2.
5 One could qualify these points. Consciousness is historically more closely tied to the notion of mind.
Representation is more closely tied to the notion of psychology. Some may find saying that an always uncon-
scious animal has a mind is harder than saying that it has a psychology. Some may find that saying that an ani-
mal, that feels pain but represents nothing, has a psychology is harder than saying that it has a mind, though not
much of a mind. One could talk of conscious mind and representational mind to ease the rub. I sometimes do so.
mammals, have representational capacities and are (often) conscious. So if there are, in
evolutionary history, separate streams into mind—animals that are conscious but do not
represent and/or animals that represent but are not conscious—, these two streams flow
back together in more complex animals.
The point about the separability of consciousness and representation is a very general,
conceptual point. There is no necessary connection between consciousness and
representation.
The point is not just of general conceptual importance. It bears on understanding the
kind of representation that figures in this book. I have said that, for all we know, there may
be animals that have perception and lack consciousness. Bees and other arthropods have
perception. They may lack consciousness. We do not know enough about consciousness to
settle the question. One day, unconscious robots might be produced so as to have visual
perception.
I think that perception without even a capacity for consciousness is epistemically, meta-
physically, and nomologically possible. Epistemically: I think that nothing that we know,
either empirically or apriori, rules out perceptual representation without consciousness
(or vice-versa). Metaphysically and nomologically: I think it a real possibility that an ani-
mal have perceptual representation and lack any capacity for consciousness. Representation
is primarily a functional matter. It hinges on what an individual or the individual’s sub-
systems can do. Consciousness is not a functional matter; it hinges on an individual’s
material basis.
Psychophysical explanations posit human perceptual states that are not and cannot
become conscious.6 Much of the science of perception is carried on without specifying
whether a perception is conscious. These points form the ground for the conjecture that
there is nothing in the nature of things that requires some association between conscious-
ness and representation.
Of course, conscious perceptions are an interesting topic. They have different
psychological-representational, as well as phenomenological, properties from uncon-
scious ones. But consciousness itself is not yet a central scientific topic. Perceptual science
has been spectacularly successful without theorizing much about it. Eventually, more will
be known.
Some philosophers claim that perception must be conscious. Some claim that percep-
tion that picks out bodies, or perception that is not guesswork and could support know
ledge, requires consciousness. None of the arguments that I know of for such positions has
any force. I discuss some in Chapter 10, the section Philosophical Views
Influenced by Treisman’s Binding Theory. Several are incompatible with what
is known from science. Issues about consciousness are not central in our story, but they
arise recurrently. I mention them here both to acknowledge their natural interest and to
motivate not centering on them. My primary focus is representation.
6 For one of many reviews of psychological work that posits unconscious perceptual states, see S. Kouider and
S. Dehaene, ‘Levels of Processing During Non-Conscious Perception: A Critical Review of Visual Masking’,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 362 (2007), 857–875. When I generalize about vision
science or perceptual psychology, I usually intend psychophysics. Sometimes when I make a point about vision
science, I do not cite specific articles. In such cases, I take the point to be uncontroversial in the science’s main-
stream. Then, I encourage novices to become acquainted with the mainstream, and to check my judgment. I take
the point footnoted in this case to be mainstream-uncontroversial. But since there has been some dissent in
philosophy, I give the nod, above, to the scientific literature.
8 Introduction
More specifically, I focus on perceptual representation. Perceptual representation is

where representational mind begins. I reflect on the joint in nature between mind and the
mindless by reflecting on differences between perceptual representation and those non-
perceptual sensory capacities that underlie it. I center on perception—and related capaci
ties like perceptual memory and perceptual anticipation—because it is functionally the
most basic representational capacity. No other representational capacity evolved earlier.
If other representational capacities (perceptual memory, for example) evolved equally
early, they depend functionally on perception.
Perception is, evolutionarily, the first known manifestation of representational mind.
Arthropods—bees, praying mantises, and certain spiders—are known to have visual per-
ception. Visual perception is distinct, in ways to be discussed, from other types of light-
based sensing. Snails, molluscs, and tapeworms sense light, even light-direction. Ants
respond to light-produced templates that correspond to surface shape.7 These capacities
for visual sensing are not perception. Snails and molluscs are not known to have visual
perception. I think it unlikely that animals that evolved much earlier than the arthropods
had perceptual representation. So we have a rough sense of where representational mind
begins. It begins among the arthropods.8
I do not center on the evolutionary emergence of representational mind, despite its
great interest. My topic is different. Given that perception is the earliest form of represen-
tation, and that other forms develop from it, what can be learned about representation and
the earliest form of representational mind by reflecting on perception? I center on what
perception is—its structure and function—not on how it evolved. Evolution will, however,
recurrently come up.
7 On snails and other molluscs, see P. Hamilton and M. Winter, ‘Behavioural Responses to Visual Stimuli by
the Snail, Littorina irrorata’, Animal Behaviour 30 (1982), 752–760; V. Zhukov, M. Bobkova, and A. Vakolyuk, ‘Eye
Structure and Vision in the Freshwater Pulmonate Mollusc, Planorbarius corneus’, Journal of Evolutionary
Biochemistry and Physiology 38 (2002), 419–430. On these animals and tapeworms, see M. Land and D. Nilsson,
Animal Eyes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 4. On ants, see K. Basten and H. Mallot, ‘Simulated Visual
Homing in Desert Ant Natural Environments: Efficiency of Skyline Cues’, Biological Cybernetics 102 (2010),
413–425; V. Aksoy and Y. Camlitepe, ‘Behavioural Analysis of Chromatic and Achromatic Vision in the Ant,
Formica cunicularia (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)’, Vision Research 67 (2012), 28–35; M.-C. Cammaerts, ‘The Visual
Perception of the Ant Myrmica ruginodis (Hymenoptera: Formicidaxe)’, Biologia 67 (2012), 1165–1174. The visual
template capacity mentioned in the text is not perception. But ants are known to have visual perception, with
perceptual constancies. They mainly act not on vision but on olfaction.
8 Bees and other arthropods have visual perception—color, location, and size constancies, for example.
See T. Collet, ‘Peering: A Locust Behavior for Obtaining Motion Parallax Information’, Journal of Experimental
Biology 76 (1978), 237–241; R. Wehner, ‘Spatial Vision in Arthropods’, in H. Autrum ed., Comparative Physiology
and Evolution of Vision in Invertebrates: Invertebrate Visual Centers and Behavior (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1981);
M. Lehrer, M. Srinivasan, S. Zhang, and G. Horridge, ‘Motion Cues Provide the Bee’s Visual World with a Third
Dimension’, Nature 332 (1988), 356–357; G. Horridge, S. Zhang, and M. Lehrer, ‘Bees Can Combine Range and
Visual Angle to Estimate Absolute Size’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 337 (1992),
49–57; M. Lehrer, ‘Spatial Vision in the Honeybee: The Use of Different Cues in Different Tasks’, Vision Research
34 (1994), 2363–2385; R. Foelix, Biology of Spiders (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 87–92; C. Neumeyer,
‘Comparative Aspects of Color Constancy’, in V. Walsh and J. Kulikowski eds., Perceptual Constancy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998); R. Wilcox and R. Jackson, ‘Cognitive Abilities of Araneophagic Jumping
Spiders’, in R. Balda, I. Pepperberg, and A. Kamil eds., Animal Cognition in Nature (San Diego: Academic Press,
1998); M. Lehrer, ‘Shape Perception in the Honeybee: Symmetry as a Global Framework’, International Journal of
Plant Sciences 160 (1999), S51–S65; K. Kral, ‘Behavioral-Analytical Studies of the Role of Head Movements in
Depth Perception in Insects, Birds and Mammals’, Behavioral Processes 64 (2003), 1–12. For further discussion of
this issue, see Burge, Origins of Objectivity, 419–420; T. Burge, ‘Origins of Perception’, Disputatio 4: 29 (2011),
1–38; and T. Burge, ‘Perception: Where Mind Begins’, Philosophy 89 (2014), 385–403, reprinted in T. Honderich
ed., Philosophers of Our Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Whether arthropods are conscious is not
known. Those squeamish about taking arthropods to have minds, if they lack consciousness, can say that they
have representational psychologies.
I also want to understand relations between perception and closely, almost inevitably
associated capacities—perceptual attention, primitive perceptually guided action, per-
ceptual memory, perceptual anticipation, perceptual imagining, perceptual learning.
I argue later that these capacities participate, with perception, in a psychological system
all of whose capacities share representational form and representational content with
perception itself.
Philosophy is fortunate to be able to reflect on science. A science of perception, particu-
larly vision science, has bloomed into a rigorous enterprise over the last fifty years. It is by
far the most impressive psychological science. It is more advanced in mathematization,
and in predictive and explanatory power than many biological sciences. Especially in the
second half of the book, I make extensive use of what is known from this science. Doing
so is part of gaining a philosophical understanding of issues attaching to perception and
perceptual-level representation.
Such understanding is inevitably affected by scientific change. A lot of detail that I dis-
cuss will turn out to be mistaken and superceded. Some of it is probably already known by
someone to be mistaken. The science is so vast that no account can keep up with every
relevant discovery. At worst, my use of empirical work is a challenge to do better.
Some of my most general points are, I think, safe. The referential-attributional structure
of perception, its iconic format, and the distinction between perceptual-level representa-
tion and propositional representation, for example, will weather changes in the science,
such as details of timing, of what perceptual-level attributives there are, and so on.
I focus on vision. I discuss hearing, touch, proprioception—the other main human per-
ceptual senses—only occasionally. This approach inevitably evokes complaints, especially
from those interested in other types of perception, and in relations between perceptual
modalities.
Several answers to such complaints seem to me apropos. First, understanding visual
perception is a huge task. Vision is the most complex of the senses. I plead human limita-
tion. I invite others to do similar work on other types of sense perception.
Second, vastly more is known about vision than about other types of perception. The
number of vision scientists and the amount of work done in visual psychology dwarfs the
number and amount in all the sciences about other perceptual modalities put together.
Third, vision is by far the most important sense for most humans and apes for guiding
their lives. It is the main basis for the development of empirical science by human beings.
Although I think it important to remember that human perception presents only one
suite of capacities, and understanding perception in other animals is of great importance,
I focus on humans because I am interested in situating perception in relation to higher
representational powers. As far as is known, only humans have some of these higher
powers—linguistically expressed thought, reflective deliberation, and scientific reasoning,
for example.
Fourth, many visual capacities have definite analogs in other perceptual modalities. So
understanding vision can provide a boost in understanding them. The sciences of hearing
and touch derive much of their success from using ideas and methods that come from
vision science.
Fifth, many of the most basic features of visual perception—its most basic representa-
tional structure and its iconic format, for example—are present and basic in the other
perceptual senses.
10 Introduction
In no way do I deny the import of non-visual perceptual modalities. Different modal

ities are always connected in perceivers that have more than one. Connections are causally
reciprocal. Perceptual-state formation in one modality can always be influenced by input
from another. Inter-modal influence occurs among touch, hearing, proprioception, and
vision. To limit complexity, I touch on inter-modal relations only glancingly.
My work on vision should not be seen as detracting from work on other modalities, or
on inter-modal influences, in any way. It should be seen as a possible resource in under-
standing inter-modal relations and relations between visual perception and perception in
other modalities.
My focus on perception is also not to be construed as minimizing the huge role of
action and reaction in forming and using perceptual capacities. Perception evolved, fun-
damentally, not because it was accurate, but because it contributed to action and reaction
that, in turn, contributed to fitness for reproduction. Action evolved before perception
did. Its flexibility and precision is enhanced by perception. Perception’s main use is in
guiding action. Its guidance is, of course, sensitive to feedback from states that set action’s
targets and feedback from action itself.
Perception and perceptual-level conative states—psychological states that function to
produce action guided by perception—form a large psychological system, the perceptual-
motor system. I discuss such conation in Chapter 14. I am acutely aware that more could
be said to provide a more balanced account of interaction between perception and con
ation. I believe, however, that perception is the main, or entire, source of representational
resources in primitive conation. That is, perceptual attributives that guide conation are the
main or entire repertoire of representation in primitive action. In primates, action guid-
ance derives primarily from vision and proprioception. Again, visual capacities do not
operate alone, or independently of relations to other perceptual modalities. Still, visual
perception looms large enough and constitutes such a formidably complex phenomenon
that I do not apologize for focusing on it.
Principal Aims of the Book
Five principal aims inform this book.

The first is to develop a detailed understanding of the core fundamental representa-
tional features of visual perception. In Part I of the book, Chapters 2–3, I explain what
I mean by perception. I distinguish it from non-perceptual sensing. I discuss the key mark
of perception—perceptual constancies. In Part II, Chapters 4–9, I develop the form, func-
tion, and content of visual perception. I set out the primary types of representation in
visual perception—such as referring (or picking-out) types and attributive (or character-
izing) types. I explain ways in which these types of representation combine to yield a
representational form—on an analogy to logical forms of propositional representation.
I discuss the basic semantics of visual perception. Finally, I explicate and explore the
iconic, map-like or picture-like format of visual perception.
The second aim, pursued in Part III, Chapters 10–12, is to situate these structures in
the processing of visual perceptual representations. I sketch some of what is known about
how the representational forms discussed in Part II are caused to occur by stimulation.
I discuss processing and time courses of some of the main types of visual perceptual
representation—representation of size, shape, position, motion, speed, color, surface,

body, body-parts, and so on. I consider whether attention is necessary for the formation of
perceptual states. I discuss types of representation that may extend this list of core types of
visual attributives. Possible extensions include attributives for various types of function
and attributives for causation and agency.
The book’s third aim is to understand some relations between visual perception and
closely related psychological capacities—perceptually guided action, perceptual attention,
perceptual memory, perceptual affect, perceptual learning, perceptual anticipation, and
perceptual imagining. I devote special attention to the perceptual level within each of the
generic capacities—conation, attention, memory, affect, learning, anticipating, imagining.
I caution against thinking of the generic capacities as monolithic. I discuss wherein sub-
species are at the same representational level as, and part of the same computational
system as, perceptual representation.
As rough approximation, higher-level, supra-perceptual-level, processes involve types
of representation or transformation that are more sophisticated and more knowledge-like
than those in perceptual-level representation. Higher-level processes use representations
that have forms and functions that perceptual-level representations lack. In most cases
higher-level capacities evolved later than perceptual-level capacities. Roughly, perceptual-
level capacities include perception and other capacities typed by the representational con-
tent of perceptual states. Such capacities do not enter into operations that are more
sophisticated or more knowledge-like than perception. Fuller explication of the notion of
a perceptual-level capacity occurs at the beginning of Part IV. Chapters 13–19 focus on
such capacities.
A fourth aim is not centered in one part of the book. It runs through almost the whole. It
is systematic opposition to an old empiricist way of thinking about perception, and its rela-
tion to thought, inherited from classical empiricists—mainly Locke and Hume. This view
correctly takes perceptions to have an image-like character. However, it conceives the con-
tents of images in terms of what seems salient in perceptual experience. Such a view tends
to ignore, doubt, or underestimate the prevalence of unconscious perception and percep-
tual operations that are not part of conscious experience. More importantly, it neglects the
capacities, functions, and uses that give perception the form and content that it has. (I see
Kant as an early opponent of such neglect.) For example, it takes perception to group
aspects of images by what, to the empiricist, seem to be intuitive types of similarity or
intuitive relations that image-parts bear to one another. Such groupings are taken to be
concrete, in accord with the idea that a perception is an image that is to be understood by
introspection of intuitively salient aspects of experience. All thought is taken to contrast
with perception by being more abstract and perhaps initially derived by a process of
abstraction from perception. So thought cannot be as concrete or imagistically specific as
perception. And perception cannot be abstract, because it is imagistically and intuitively
concrete. All these points are supposed to be derived from reflection on phenomenally salient
features of perceptual images. The empiricist distinction between perception and thought
lies along an intuitive, but not-very-well-articulated, spectrum of concrete-to-abstract. Few
explicitly develop and elaborate the model nowadays. It retains a surprising unreflective
resilience in philosophy and parts of psychology outside mainstream psychophysics.
The view elaborated in this book follows not introspection or intuitive senses of
image-similarity. It focuses on capacities to form and use perception that are discovered in
12 Introduction
perceptual psychology. Some of these capacities produce intuitively familiar features of

conscious perception. But many others produce aspects—especially categorizing aspects—
of perception that depend on specific species-needs or individual-needs and on statistical
patterns in the environment that perceptual systems have capitalized upon. Some of these
do not line up with intuitive senses of image-similarity. In focusing on capacities and use
not introspection, the account also finds perception to engage in levels of abstraction that
can easily seem not to be capable of being represented directly by an image. Yet, I believe
that in being iconic, visual perception is always grounded in image-like representation.
Developing this combination of ideas is a central part of this initiative in the book.
I reject the empiricist way of distinguishing perception and thought (or cognition, or
conception)—which cites differences in levels of abstraction. Both perception and propos
itional thought occur at highly concrete and highly abstract levels. Thought can rely on
perception in its modes of presentation, and be every bit as concrete and detailed as per-
ception can be. Conversely, perceptual representation extends from very concrete and
finely discriminated to very generic groupings. Thoughts share various levels of concre-
tion and abstraction with perceptions by constitutively relying, partly, on perception for
representing. Of course, some thoughts are abstract in ways that no perceptions are.
Thoughts can be about unobservables. Some thoughts are amodal, independent of a sen-
sory modality. Some represent logical functions or numbers that lack instances in space or
time. But since perceptions can be very abstract and thought can be very concrete, the
empiricist way of distinguishing them is misdirected.
The difference between perception and thought resides not in what can be intuitively
introspected in an image. It resides in different forms, functions, uses, and capacities
(or competencies). Although thought shares perception’s basic representational capacities—
specifically reference and attribution—, it constitutively involves further capacities, func-
tions, and forms not present in perception. Use and competence ground constitutive
differences between perception and thought, not image-like format and not (primarily)
levels of concreteness or abstraction.
These themes run throughout the book. They emerge first in Chapter 2, Perception as
Objectification. They become much more prominent in Chapter 4, Taxonomic Hierarchies
in Perception. They run strongly through Chapters 8–10 and 12. They mark all discussions
of categorization. They culminate in the last two sections of Chapter 19.
Replacing the traditional empiricist introspective approach to perception aids the fifth
main aim of the book: developing notions of perceptual system and perceptual-motor sys-
tem. This aim occupies Chapter 19. The aim is guided by the attempt to understand differ-
ences between perceptual- level and supra- perceptual-level capacities, which has as
background Chapters 13–18. I think that the deepest divide in the mind is between
perceptual-level states and propositional-level states. Otherwise put, the divide is between
the level of perception and the level of propositional reasoning or thought. I explore pos
sible non-propositional, supra-perceptual capacities. But the key target is understanding
the large perceptual and perceptual-motor systems. These systems mark, I think, the terri-
tory of lower representational mind.
What immediately follows is an unnuanced forecast of some ideas to be developed
about relations between perception and conception. More detailed discussion of exactly
how I understand relations between higher-level representational resources and percep-
tion, or perceptual-level ones, occupies Part IV, especially Chapter 19.
I believe that one feature of the relation between perceptual and perceptual-level cap
acities, on one hand, and conceptual and propositional capacities, on the other, is that the
former have a kind of self-sufficiency. I believe that no type of perceptual state constitu-
tively, or by computational law, depends for its formation on conceptual influence, or on
influence from propositional states. Any perceptual state can be generated computation-
ally without any concept’s or propositional state’s figuring in the computation. Formation
of perceptual representations does not depend essentially on conceptual resources.
Similarly, relations between perceptual states and other perceptual-level states do not
depend computationally on input from conceptual or propositional resources, and could
in principle occur without such resources. As far as is now known, computational explan
ations of how perceptual memories and perceptual anticipations are formed from percep-
tual states, the perceptual-level initiations of attention and their effect on perception, the
task dependence of perception on conative states, and so on, can be computationally
explained without reference to conceptual or propositional input. Computational explan
ations in the psychophysics of perception do not include reference to conceptual states.
None of this is to say that concepts cannot influence what perceptions are formed.
Instructions in propositional form by scientists influence perceptual search and make per-
ceptual processing take courses that it would not have taken, apart from the instructions.
They thereby influence perceptual processing. I think that there is a sense in which, even
in these cases, they do not enter the process itself. Causal computational sequences that
lead from non-conceptual input into a perceptual system always suffice to explain the
formation of perceptual states.
Similarly, certain types of conceptually initiated attention affect perceptual-level atten-
tion commands, and thereby affect attention during perceptual processing. The attention
affects the processing. So perceptual processing can be causally affected by conceptual
states, even as the processing occurs. However, causal-computational sequences that begin
with the perceptual-level attention commands, or with attention within perception, omit
inclusion of the conceptual antecedents, yet are explanatorily satisfying. In principle, the
same attention commands and attention effects could have been formed without concep-
tual influence. Although not always the whole causal story, explanation by reference to the
concept-free causal computational sequence is, in a sense to be discussed, sufficient to
provide systematic explanation of the formation of a perception. I think that the concept
of perceptual system, and distinctions between perceptual-level and conceptual-level
psychological kinds can be partly understood by reference to these facts.
In the last two decades, scientific understanding of visual processing has substantially
changed. It used to be thought that processing was much more “bottom up”. It is now
known to have substantial recurrent processing–processing that proceeds from more ana-
tomically downstream visual areas back upstream toward initially early areas. Neural pro-
cessing begins with the onset of a proximal stimulus and proceeds to early processing
areas, such as the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), the primary visual cortex (V1), and
the middle temporal area (MT). It then proceeds to visual areas, V2–V4, the infero-
temporal cortex (IT), parietal areas, and the pre-frontal cortex. From the beginning, hori-
zontal processing takes place, for example, among areas within LGN or V1. Later, recurrent
processing begins, from V2-V4 and beyond, back to V1 (and similarly for each later
stage—V2 . . .). So processing is much more multi-directional than was thought as recently
as the 1990s. The neurological sequence has psychological analogs.
14 Introduction
The change in understanding how complex visual processing is has encouraged philo-
sophical and scientific discussion of “cognitive penetration” into visual processing. To
what extent and in what ways do representational capacities that are not perception enter
into visual processing? Are some of the capacities, like attention, memory, and so on, “cog-
nitive”? Does background propositional-level intention, belief, or knowledge affect visual
processing? If so, how? This discussion requires detailed reflection on the psychological
processing, and the specific character, of generic capacities like attention, memory, and so
on—insofar as they enter into visual processing. It also requires serious discussion of the
terms ‘cognitive’ and ‘penetration’. The term ‘cognitive’ is used in many, often thoughtless,
ways. The term ‘penetration’ is also used in different ways. In both cases, undisciplined
uses and insufficient reflection obscure how perceptual-level processing is explained in
perceptual psychology.
The philosophical interest of these issues, for me, is that they bear on understanding
joints in nature that border perceptual representation. It is arrogant to think that we
“carve” joints. We do not do anything to them. When we try to carve, we make a bloody
mess. We discover them. At least, sometimes. Discovery is more delicate and less intrusive
than carving. Perceptual psychology has advanced to a stage where it can help guide dis-
covery. I argue that visual perceptual processing forms a system with several capacities
that are not themselves perception—including some types of attention, action-guidance,
anticipation, and memory. I argue that these capacities are perceptual-level in that they
derive all or many of their representational contents from perception and are not in any
way more sophisticated than perception. The basic representational structure and the
sophistication of transitions or operations in these systems are not more advanced or fun-
damentally different from the structure and transitions in perception.
As noted, these perceptual-level capacities do interact with propositional, “cognitive”
capacities. Yet, in a sense to be discussed, propositional capacities are not part of a certain
system with perception, or its most closely associated perceptual-level capacities.
The third and fifth aims bear on the upper border of perception and perceptual-level
processes—their relation to higher level representational capacities, especially propos
itional capacities. In the early chapters of the book, I discuss the lower border of percep-
tion. This border divides perception and perceptual-level capacities from non-perceptual
sensing and from action that is not guided by perception or any other representational
capacity. This discussion mostly reviews accounts already provided in Origins of Objectivity.
It also refines these accounts. Parts II and III of the present book discuss the heartland—
visual perception itself. In Part IV, I try to understand some central aspects of perception’s,
and perceptual-level capacities’, upper border—their border with more advanced kinds of
representation.
Propositional-level intention, belief, and knowledge lie on the other side of this
upper border. I discuss in Chapter 19 whether there are non-propositional types of repre-
sentation that are more “advanced” in some deep principled way than perception—thus
perhaps a kind of intermediate territory between the perceptual level and the level of
propositional thought.
The book concludes with reflections on the importance of the border between perceptual-
level representation and propositional representation. The latter is necessary for science,
understanding, morality, art. Perceptual-level states are an indispensable ground for these
enterprises. This project aims at understanding the capacities that formed this ground.
Fregean Source of Semantical Notions for Perception 15
The Fregean Source of Key Semantical Notions for Perception
I wrote in the Preface that Gottlob Frege fashioned central theoretical semantical concepts
that are relevant to understanding perception.9 These concepts have been refined and sys-
tematized by philosophers and mathematical logicians through the twentieth century. The
concepts have been applied to the semantics of natural language and thought.10 Linguists
appropriated the concepts from philosophy and mathematical logic in the 1970s.
Frege was more concerned with mathematical thought than with language, let alone
perception. Perception is not thought or language. It differs from both in fundamental
ways. Still, four of his concepts are directly applicable to perceptual representation.
I develop them, as they apply to perception, in Part II. I make some general points here.
First, Frege’s understanding of predication, as functional application, took the key step
in gaining a modern understanding of characterization, or attribution. Predication in lan-
guage and conceptual attribution in thought are rooted in more primitive attribution in
perception. Perceiving something as brown is perceptually characterizing it, making an
attribution to it.
As I use the term, predication is attribution that functions to contribute to a propos
itional structure. So predication is conceptual or linguistic attribution. Attribution in per-
ception is not predication. Perceptual states are not propositional. They do attribute
properties, kinds, and relations. Properties, kinds, and relations are attributes. Perceptual
states characterize entities that they function to represent by representing them as having
attributes. I use ‘attribution’ to cover both predication and the purely reference-serving
characterization in perception (and in many uses of pictures). So attribution, but not
predication, occurs in perception.
Second, Frege took the key step in achieving a modern understanding of reference—in
particular the “picking out” of a particular entity. The key step was understanding how
singular reference fits with predication to produce a complex representation. Frege’s
notion of Bedeutung, one form of which is a type of reference, was a highly theoretical
notion, fitted to the semantics of logic and mathematics. However, close examination of
his informal explications of relevant forms of Bedeutung (forms for names) shows that,
in forming his technical notion, he reflected on the common-sense notion of singular
reference—picking out an individual entity. He was aware of connections between his
9 G. Frege, Begriffsschrift (1879), in J. van Heijenoort ed., From Frege to Gödel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1970); G. Frege, ‘Funktion und Begriff ’ (1891) and G. Frege, ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’ (1892),
both translated in P. Geach and M. Black eds., Translations of the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1966), also in M. Beany ed., The Frege Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). For extensive discussion of
Frege’s work, see T. Burge, Truth, Thought, Reason: Essays on Frege. Philosophical Essays, Volume 1 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2005).
10 A. Tarski, ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’ (1931, 1933), translated in Logic, Semantics,
Metamathematics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956); R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity (1947)
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2nd edition, 1967); A. Church, ‘A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and
Denotation’, in P. Henle, H. Kallen, and S. Langer eds., Structure, Method, and Meaning (New York: Liberal Arts
Press, 1951); A. Church, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Volume I (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1956); A. Church, ‘A Revised Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation’, Nous 7 (1973), 24–33, Nous 8
(1974), 135–156. All of the relevant Church material occurs in T. Burge and H. Enderton eds., The Collected
Works of Alonzo Church (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019); W. Quine, Word and Object (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1960); D. Kaplan, Foundations of Intensional Logic (Dissertation, University of California, at Los Angeles,
1964); D. Davidson, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’ (1967), in Essays on Action and Events (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1980).
16 Introduction
notion of singular Bedeutung and perception.11 Perceptual states function to refer to—or
pick out—particular entities in the environment. Their attributive, or characterizing,
function is systematically associated with their referring, or picking-out, function.
Frege’s technical analog of singular reference, singular Bedeutung, was context-free. He
wanted to understand context-free names, like numerals or diagrams of geometrical fig-
ures. Because of his interest in mathematics and logic, he neglected detailed reflection on
context-dependent reference. His conception of how context-free singular reference com-
bines with attribution can, however, be naturally extended to contextual-dependent,
demonstrative-like singular reference. Reference via perceiving something, which depends
on causal relations to what it picks out, depends on context in that it depends on occurrent
stimuli to pick out anything.
Philosophical and mathematical extensions of Frege’s ideas about singular denotation
(Bedeutung) were applied mainly to context-free languages, like mathematics and pure math-
ematical logic, until the 1970s. Philosophers extended Frege’s idea of context-free denotation
to demonstrative uses and other context-dependent devices in language and thought.12
I think that context-dependent demonstrative reference in language and thought are
literal outgrowths from the referential relation between a perceptual state and perceived
entity. Of course, demonstratives in language and much demonstrative-like reference in
thought are applied in individuals’ acts. Perceptual reference is mostly not active. However,
demonstrative-like reference in thought and demonstrative-like reference in perception
are structurally and functionally the same. Although perception is the root of reference,
understanding reference began with understanding language and thought. That under-
standing can be fruitfully applied back to the root source—perception.
Third, Frege’s notion of sense, as a way in which entities are presented to the mind, is a
further semantical idea that he applied to language and thought, but that has clear applica-
tions to perception.13 That notion is the antecedent of modern notions, certainly my
notion, of representational content. In Chapter 2, I explain the notion of representational
content in some detail. For now, think of it as a way of representing that sets, or contrib-
utes to setting, conditions for accuracy or truth. Different thoughts can represent the same
entity in different ways. Different kinds of perceptual states can, and commonly do, repre-
sent a given particular and given attributes of the particular in different ways. Differences
in “ways” constitute different kinds of psychological competence or capacity, different
representational contents. Perceptual reference to a particular, and perceptual attribution
11 Frege, ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’; G. Frege, ‘Der Gedanke’ (1921), translated in Beany ed., The Frege
Reader. See Frege’s use and discussion of Kant’s notion of intuition, a form of singular reference, in Begriffsschrift,
section 8; and G. Frege, Grundlage der Arithmetik (1884), J. Austin trans., The Foundations of Arithmetic
(Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968). See also I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, P. Guyer and
A. Wood eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), B33–B34. Frege used Kant’s notion to account for
reference in geometry, focusing on Kant’s sub-species of sensible intuition: apriori sensible intuition. Frege was
aware that Kant’s other sub-species—empirical sensible intuition—is equivalent to sense perception. Frege
understood both species to be theoretical notions that function to do the work of the common-sense notion,
singular reference (or singular denotation).
12 See, among others, T. Burge, ‘Demonstrative Constructions, Reference, and Truth’, Journal of Philosophy 71
(1974), 205–223; T. Burge, ‘Belief De Re’, The Journal of Philosophy 74 (1977), 338–362, reprinted in T. Burge,
Foundations of Mind. Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007); D. Kaplan,
‘Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Epistemology of Demonstratives and
Other Indexicals’ (1977), in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein eds., Themes from Kaplan (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989); D. Kaplan, ‘On the Logic of Demonstratives’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 8 (1979), 81–98.
13 Frege, ‘Funktion und Begriff ’; Frege, ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’; Frege, ‘Der Gedanke’.
Fregean Source of Semantical Notions for Perception 17
of a property or relation, in a specific way that hinges on a specific stimulus and perspec-
tive on the particular, property, or relation, lies at the heart of perception. The psycho
logically specific way is the way of characterizing the entities that are purportedly referred
to in a perceptual state. That way is integral to perceptual constancies.
The modern notion of representational content is an heir of Frege’s notion of sense.
As will become evident in discussion of representational content, my notion drops Frege’s
Platonic ontology of sense, and grounds representational contents in psychologies. In fact,
I take representational contents to be psychological kinds of representational states, events,
or competencies. Representational contents can include psychological events in time
(what I call context-bound referential applications). This idea, too, departs from Frege’s
notion of sense, which was context-free. However, representational contents retain key
functions that Frege assigned to sense. Both sense and representational content set, or
contribute to setting, veridicality conditions, and constitute specific ways in which repre-
sentata are presented to minds.14
A fourth Fregean idea is a corollary of the first three. Since Frege took senses to be or
contribute to thought contents, he took them to have logical form.15 He took thoughts’
logical forms to be structures that ground systematic semantic explanation of truth and
falsity in terms of denotation and predication. Analogs of logical forms also underlie
propositional inference—for him, specifically deductive inference.
Frege’s notion of logical form has an analog and root in perception. The simplest logical
forms involve reference and predication. Reference occurs in perception: perception of
something is a kind of reference to it. Predication is a sub-species of attribution.
Attribution occurs in perception: perceiving something as being a certain way involves
attribution of a property, kind, or relation. Perception attributes properties, kinds, or rela-
tions in perceptually characterizing what is perceived—what perception referentially picks
out. Combination of aspects of perception that function to refer, on one hand, with aspects
that function to attribute, on the other, yields complexes that are either accurate or inaccurate.
These complexes are analogs of thoughts or sentences that have logical form. The com-
plexes are literally representational structures of perceptual states. The combinations of
reference and attribution can be evaluated for perceptual accuracy or inaccuracy. Logical
form is a structure for propositional thoughts and sentences. Logical forms go well beyond
anything present in perception. Perception contains no logical connectives (or, if–then),
no quantifiers (all), and no modal operators or modal attributives (is necessary). I argue
these points in Chapter 6, the section Absence in Perception of Negations,
Conditionals, Disjunctions, Quantifiers. They are intuitively plausible
enough to be stated here. Perception exercises reference and attribution. Reference and
attribution are psychological, representational capacities. Understanding ways in which
these semantical factors combine to yield semantically structured perceptual states, which
are accurate or inaccurate, is part of understanding perception.
14 Burge, ‘Belief De Re’, section 4; and T. Burge, ‘Postscript: “Belief De Re” (1977)’, in Foundations of Mind.
Philosophical Essays, Volume 2.
15 Strictly, for Frege, the notion of denotation (Bedeutung) applied to a relation between symbols and represen-
tata, not a relation between senses and representata. His term for the latter relation was ‘determination’
(Bestimmung). Determination is structurally analogous to denotation. In fact, Frege thought of determination
as more basic than denotation, because he thought that the contents of thoughts (senses) are more basic than
linguistic expression of them.
18 Introduction
Since the science of perception aims at understanding accuracy and illusion in percep-
tion, it should think systematically about the semantics of perception. Although this
semantics is not nearly as rich and varied as the semantics of language and thought, it is,
as we shall see, much richer and more complex than one might imagine from off-the-cuff
reflection.
All four key Fregean semantical notions, then, have roots in perception. Perceiving an
object, or other particular, is a type of “picking out” or contextual reference. Perceiving
something as being a certain way is a type of characterization or attribution. Perceiving
something as having a given property from one perspective, via one kind of perceptual
state—as distinct from perceiving it as having the property from another perspective,
via another kind of perceptual state—just is attributing the property through one kind of
representational content rather than another. All perceptual states can be evaluated for
accuracy. All accurate and all inaccurate perceptual states are combinations (a) of seman-
tical elements (representational capacities) whose representational function is to refer
(to pick out), with (b) semantical elements whose representational function is to attribute
some property, relation, or kind to what is referred to. Such combinations systematically
yield an analog of logical form.
These ideas are, I think, central to obtaining systematic understanding of accuracy and
inaccuracy in perception. The terminology and traditions drawn on here can deepen
understanding of basic aspects of the psychology of perception. They thereby deepen
understanding of perception itself, specifically its representational aspects. That is a reason
why perceptual psychologists interested in understanding general features of their subject
matter would do well to master the technical vocabulary and ways of thinking that mark
parts of this book.
Although the basic notions of reference, attribution, representational content, and
representational form are all applicable to perception, there are differences between
their applications to perception and their applications to language and thought. An aim
of this book is to tailor application of these and other semantical notions to perception.
Since the most basic forms of reference, attribution, representational content, and repre-
sentational form are perceptual, semantical reflection on perception can illumine the roots
of these notions.
A corollary is that one of the deepest contributions that thinking about perception
by using tools from the logical and semantical traditions can make is to clarify what it
is about perception that differentiates it from thought—and vice-versa. Reflecting on
differences between the representational function and representational form of percep-
tion, on one hand, and the representational function and representational form of belief,
on the other, is a route into understanding differences in psychological kinds. Whereas
perception shares reference and attribution with propositional thought, it utilizes these
representational capacities in more limited ways. Belief is propositional. Perception is not
propositional. It is nominal. Understanding the difference will, I think, help in under-
standing the most basic joint in the mind—the joint between perception—and perceptual-
level capacities—, on one hand, and propositional thought, on the other. The structures of
perception that I discuss are not linguistic or logical. They are more basic than and prior
to the structures of language and propositional thought. I think that noun-phrase struc-
tures governed by contextual, referential determiners in language and thought derive from
perception. Perception has the most basic, and evolutionarily earliest, semantics.
2
Perception
…while a sense is what is receptive of sensible [or perceptible] forms without

the matter, just as the wax receives the seal-imprint of the ring without the
iron and the gold, but takes the golden or the brazen imprint, but not qua gold
or bronze, yet in a similar way too the sense is affected by each thing that has
color or flavor or sound, but not qua each of those being called, but qua of
such-a-sort [paralleling qua as golden or as brazen], and according to propor-
tion [or as a measurement]
Aristotle, De Anima, Book 2, Chapter 12, 424a17–24
translation in consultation with Gavin Lawrence
In Origins of Objectivity, chapter 9, I proposed a rough explication of what perception is.

Here I set out that account with minor refinements. The explication is not a definition. It
does not purport to give necessary and sufficient conditions. I think that the notion of
perception is a primitive notion that cannot be defined in other terms in an illuminating
way. The explication functions to provide orientation and background.
Here is the explication:
Perception is sensory, objective representation—paradigmatically by individuals—

that is generated from current stimulation and normally (except in unusual circum-
stances) represents a roughly present subject matter as roughly present.
I say ‘paradigmatically by individuals’. I doubt that all perception is necessarily attributable

to an individual perceiver. Perhaps there are cases in which it is attributable only to an indi-
vidual’s sub-system. I know of no clear cases. Certainly, all cases of perception occur in
individuals and serve perception attributable to individuals. Paradigmatically, individuals
perceive.16 Here, the key concepts in this explication are sensory, representation, and objective.
16 Origins of Objectivity, 369, where I write:

I do not claim that all perceptions are perceptions by an individual. I claim that necessarily and
constitutively, some perceptions in an individual’s perceptual subsystem are perceptions by the
individual. And I claim that all perceptions, including any that are not attributable to the individual,
serve perception by individuals.
I do not push cases of perception that are not imputable to an individual. My reason for allowing for them is not that
I have specific cases in mind. It is that I know of no apriori reason for disallowing them. I do not think that a percep-
tion’s being inaccessible to consciousness, in itself, renders it a perception that is not attributable to the individual.
I lay aside perception by groups. If there is such a thing, parallel points would apply. Paradigmatically, percep-
tual states are attributable to the macro-perceiver, whether the individual or the group. Of course, all perceptual
states attributable to perceivers are also attributable to their sub-systems. For criticism of a debate about uncon-
scious perception that misuses my views on perception “by the individual”, see T. Burge, ‘Entitlement: The Basis
for Empirical Warrant’, in P. Graham and N. Pedersen eds., Epistemic Entitlement (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2020), 69n45. (cont.)
Perception: First Form of Mind. Tyler Burge, Oxford University Press (2022). © Tyler Burge.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198871002.003.0002
20 Perception
Perceptual States as Sensory States
Perception is sensory. It is a certain capacity or competence for discrimination as a result

of current stimulation of psychological states formed from causal impact.17 The discrimin
ation is discrimination of causes. It need not, and commonly does not, discriminate them
as causes. A sensory state discriminates entities that are among its causes. Since a percep-
tual state is a type of sensory state, particular entities that it discriminates are its causes.
Discriminating a type of cause is co-varying with and responding differentially to the
type; the discrimination must have a function for the individual or for the sensory system
of which it is a part. Thus sensory states are information registrational states. Discriminating
a particular—a non-repeatable—is responding to the causal impact of that particular,
where the particular is of a type that is discriminated. I conjectured earlier that the larger
functioning system within which these discriminations occur supports a capacity for action.
Sensory states in a sensory system—including a sensory perceptual system—are not
generated by operations attributable to the individual. The states are produced in the
individual. Although the individual perceives, the individual does not produce the

perceptions.
Sensory states are generated from current stimulation. Here I intend ‘generated’ to
exclude ‘propositionally inferred’. One might make propositional inferences caused by
current stimulation. Neither the premises nor the conclusions of the inferences would be
sensory states.
A sensory state has a basic discriminatory function—to discriminate via causal sensi-
tivity. Perceptual states discriminate via causal sensitivity. Unlike non-perceptual sensory
states, they discriminate representationally. This difference will be discussed shortly.
Perceptual beliefs also have this discriminatory function. Unlike sensory states, including
perceptual states, perceptual beliefs have other functions as well—centrally, contributing
capacities for propositional inference.
Like perception, perceptual memory, perceptual anticipation, and perceptual imagining
are broadly sensory. Their states are not sensings, or hence perceptual states. They are not
generated from current sensory stimulation. Perceptual memory is memory that functions
to retain perceptual contents. The contents of perceptual memory are perceptual con-
tents—prominently, perceptual attributives—that function to retain contents of percep-
tual states already generated. Perceptual memory represents its subject matter as in the
past. Perceptual anticipation is usually mediately related to perception via perceptual
memory. Like perceptual memory, it utilizes perceptual contents, but is not produced by
current sensory stimulation. It does not function to discriminate causes of present sensory
effects. Unlike perceptual memory, it functions to represent future, anticipated states or
events. Perceptual imagining produces states with perceptual content. They are not caused
by current sensory stimulation. Unlike perception, perceptual memory, and perceptual
anticipation, states of perceptual imagining do not function to represent veridically.
For just one of countless examples of scientific discussion of unconscious perception, see V. Axelrod, M. Bar,
and G. Rees, ‘Exploring the Unconscious Using Faces’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (2015), 35–45. See also note
6 above and note 827 below.
17 Here and throughout, I use the terms ‘capacity’ and ‘competence’ interchangeably. I use them in the sense
that Chomsky articulated—distinguishing competence from performance: N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1965).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
tiernas y turbadas; allí lágrimas y
risas, ruegos y promesas, y sobre
todo Amor que lo sazonaba. No
fué sola esta vez la que Mendino
y Elisa por aquella parte se
hablaron; pero no todas Mendino
llevó á Siralvo que le
acompañasse, porque sabía que
el humilde pastor no lo era en
pensamientos. Andaba
furiosamente herido de los
amores de Filida, Filida que por
lo menos en hermosura era
llamada sin par y en suerte no la
tenía; y como los días con la
ocupación del ganado y el recelo
de Vandalio y sus pastores (á
donde Filida estaba) no le daban
lugar á procurar verla ni oirla, iba
las noches y descansaba á vista
de sus cabañas, y algunas veces
veía á la misma Filida, que en
compañía de sus pastoras salía á
buscar la frescura de las fuentes,
y entre los árboles cantaba, y
haciéndose encontrado con ellas,
no se esquivaba Filida de oirle ni
de entender que le amaba, que
bien sabía de Florela, pastora
suya, con quien Siralvo
comunicaba su mal, y de cuantos
más al pastor conocían, que
cabía en su virtud su deseo. Esto
entendía Mendino, y lastimoso de
estorbarle, muchas noches se iba
solo á hablar á la hermosa Elisa,
entre las cuales una el
sospechoso Padileo le acechó y
le vido, y fué por mejor que,
celoso y desconfiado, sin decir la
causa de su movimiento, pidió
luego por mujer á la hermosa y
discreta Albanisa, viuda del
próspero Mendineo, hija del
generoso rabadán Coriano, que
en la ribera del Henares vivía, y
allí desde las antiguas cabañas
de su padre apacentaba en la
fértil ribera 1.000 vacas, 10.000
ovejas criaderas y otras tantas
cabras en el monte al gobierno de
su mayoral Montano, padre de
Siralvo, pastor de Mendino. Esta
famosa empresa consiguió
Padileo, y en conformidad de los
deudos de una y otra parte, partió
del Tajo, acompañado de los
mejores rabadanes dél, y el
mismo Mendino, que muy deudo
y amigo era de la gentil Albanisa,
y desposado y contento, con el
mayor gassajo y fiesta que jamás
se vido entre pastores, volvió del
Henares con la cara esposa,
enriqueciendo de beldad y valor el
Tajo y su ribera; desta suerte
quedó contento Mendino y
pagado Padileo, y Elisa, pagada y
contenta; y como de nuevo
comenzó Mendino en sus
amores, y forzosamente á fingir
con Filis y Elisa con Galafrón, que
no les importaba menos que el
sossiego, y sin más industria
dellos, el viejo Sileno asseguró su
pecho, y el trato como primero y
con más deleite tornó en todos y
los placeres y fiestas lo mismo,
porque para cualquier género de
ejercicio había en la ribera
bastantíssima compañía: en
fuerza y maña, Mendino, Castalio,
Cardenio y Coridón; en la divina
alteza de la poesía, Arciolo, Tirsi,
Campiano y Siralvo; en la música
y canto, con la hermosa Belisa,
Salio, Matunto, Filardo y Arsiano,
aunque á la sazón Filardo,
enamorado de la pastora Filena y
celoso de Pradelio, andaba
retirado, con mucho disgusto de
todos, que nadie probaba su
amistad que no le amasse por su
nobleza y trato; pero de muchas
bellas pastoras favorecido, amaba
á sola Filena y sola ella le
aborrecía, siendo verdad que otro
tiempo le estimaba; pero cansóse
el Amor, como otras veces suele,
y con todo esso Filardo, tan
cortés y leal que se escondía á
aquejarse, y en la mayor soledad
encubría sus celos; solos estaban
Coridon y Mendino junto á una
fuente, que al pie de una vieja
noguera manaba, cubierta por la
parte del Oriente de una alta roca,
que alargando la mañana
gozaban de más frescura y
secreto, cuando por un estrecho
sendero vieron venir á Filardo,
buscando la soledad para sus
quejas, y al mismo tiempo fueron
dél sentidos; y viendo ocupado el
lugar que él buscaba, quiso
volverse, pero los dos no lo
consintieron, antes Mendino le
rogó que llegasse, y llegado,
Coridón le pidió que tañesse, y
tañendo ambos le incitaron al
canto, que, comedido y afable, no
se pudo excusar, ni aquí su
canción, que fué ésta:
FILARDO
Vuestra beldad, vuestro
valor, pastora,
contrarios son al que su fuerza
trata,
que si la hermosura le
enamora,
la gravedad de la ocasión le
mata;
los contentos del alma que os
adora,
el temor los persigue y
desbarata,
lucha mi amor y mi
desconfianza,
crece el deseo y mengua la
esperanza.
Los venturosos ojos del que
os mira,
os juzgan por regalo del
tormento,
y el alma triste que por vos
suspira,
por rabia y perdición del
pensamiento;
essa beldad que al corazón
admira,
esse rigor que atierra el
sufrimiento,
poniéndonos el seso en su
balanza,
sube el deseo y baja la
esperanza.
Aunque me vi llegado al fin
de amaros,
ningún medio hallé de
enterneceros,
que como fué forzoso el
desearos,
lo fué el desconfiar de
mereceros;
el que goza la gloria de
miraros
y padece el dolor de
conoceros,
conocerá cuán poco bien se
alcanza,
rey el deseo, esclava la
esperanza.
Si propia obligación de
hermosura
es mansedumbre al alma que
la estima,
y al fuerte do razón más
assegura,
tantos peligros voluntad
arrima,
vaya para menguada mi
ventura,
pues lo más sano della me
lastima;
mas si holgáis de ver mi mala
andanza,
viva el deseo y muera la
esperanza.
Bien muestra Amor su mano
poderosa,
pero no justiciera en mi
cuidado,
atando una esperanza tan
medrosa
al yugo de un deseo tan
osado,
que en cuanto aquél pretende,
puede y osa,
ella desmedra, teme y cae al
lado,
que mal podrán hacer buena
alianza
fuerte el deseo y débil la
esperanza.
La tierna planta que, de
flores llena,
el bravo viento coge sin
abrigo,
bate sus ramas y en su seno
suena,
llévala y torna, y vuélvela
consigo,
siembra la flor ó al hielo la
condena,
piérdese el fruto, triunfa el
enemigo;
sin más reparo y con mayor
pujanza
persigue mi deseo á mi
esperanza.
Cantó Filardo, y Mendino quedó

de su canción muy lastimoso.
Coridón no, que estaba ausente
de su bien, y cuantos males no
eran de ausencia le parecían
fáciles de sufrir. Cada uno siente
su dolor, y el de Filardo no era de
olvidar que era de olvido, y ahora,
después de haber alabado su
cantar tan igual en la voz y el arte,
los tres pastores se metieron en
largas pláticas de diversas cosas,
y la última fué la ciencia de la
Astrología, que grandes maestros
della había en el Tajo; allí estaba
el grave Erión, de quien después
trataremos; el antiguo Salcino, el
templado Micanio, con otros
muchos de igual prueba; mas
entre todos, Filardo alabó el gran
saber de Sincero, y la llaneza y
claridad con que oía y daba sus
respuestas: por esto le dió gran
gana á Mendino de verse con
Sincero, que muchos días había
deseado saber á dónde llegaba el
arte destos magos; y como
Filardo dijo que sabía su morada,
los tres se concertaron de
buscarle el día siguiente, antes
que el Sol estorbasse su camino,
con lo cual tomaron el de sus
cabañas, donde cada uno á su
modo passó el día y la noche, y
ya que el alba y el cuidado del
concierto desterraron el sueño,
Coridón y Filardo buscaron á
Mendino, cuando él salía de sus
cabañas á buscarlos, y
escogiendo la vía más breve y
menos agra passaron el monte, y
á dos millas que por selvas y
valles anduvieron, en lo más
secreto de un espesso soto
hallaron un edificio de natura, á
manera de roca, en una peña
viva, cercado de dos brazas de
fosso de agua clara hasta la mitad
de la hondura; aquí quiso Filardo
merecer la entrada, y sentado
sobre la hierba sacó la lira, á cuyo
son con este soneto despertó á
Sincero:
FILARDO
Si me hallasse en Indias de
contento,
y descubriesse su mayor
tesoro
en el lugar donde tristeza ó
lloro
jamás hubiessen destemplado
el viento;
Donde la voluntad y el
pensamiento
guardassen siempre al gusto
su decoro,
sin ti estaría, sin ti que sola
adoro,
pobre, encogido, amargo y
descontento.
¿Pues qué haré donde
contino suenan
agüeros tristes de presente
daño,
propio lugar de miserable
suerte;
Y adonde mis amigos me
condenan,
y es el cuchillo falsedad y
engaño,
y tú el verdugo que me das la
muerte?
Con el postrero acento de Filardo

abrió el mago una pequeña
puerta, y con aspecto grave y
afables razones los saludó y
convidó á su cueva. Pues como
fuesse aquello á lo que venían,
fácilmente acetaron, y por una
tabla que el mago tenía en el
fosso, que sería de quince pies en
largo, hecha á la propia medida,
passaron allá y entraron en aquel
lugar inculto, donde lo que hay
menos que ver es el dueño. Aquí
en estas peñas cavadas solo vivo
y solo valgo, y aunque no á todos
comunico mi pecho, bien sé,
nobles pastores, que sois dignos
de amor y reverencia; mas vos,
Coridón ausente, y vos, Filardo
olvidado, perdonaréis por ahora, y
vos, Mendino, oid quién sois y lo
que de vos ha sido y será, que
dichoso es el hombre que sabe
sus daños para hacerles reparo y
sus bienes para alegrarse en
ellos; y viendo que Mendino le
prestaba atención, en estas
palabras soltó su voz el mago:
SINCERO
Cuando natura con atenta
mano,
viendo el Sér soberano de do
viene,
el ser que el hombre tiene y es
dechado,
dó está representado, y junto
todo,
quiso con nuevo modo hacer
prueba
maravillosa y nueva, no del
pecho,
cuyo poder y hecho á todo
excede,
pero de cuánto puede y
cuánto es buena
capacidad terrena en
fortaleza,
en gracia, en gentileza, en
cortesía,
en gala, en gallardía, en arte,
en ciencia,
en ingenio, en prudencia y en
conceto,
en virtud y respeto, y
finalmente,
en cuanto propiamente acá en
el suelo
una muestra del cielo sea
possible,
con la voz apacible, el rostro
grave,
como aquella que sabe cuanto
muestra
su poderosa diestra y sola
abarca,
invocando á la Parca
cuidadosa,
«Obra tan generosa se te
ofrece,
le dice, que parece
menosprecio
hacer caudal y precio de otra
alguna
de cuantas con la luna se
renuevan,
ó con el sol se ceban y fatigan,
ó á la sombra mitigan su
trabajo;
tus hombros pon debajo de mi
manto,
obrador sacrosanto de tu
ciencia,
y con tal diligencia luego
busca
aquel copo que ofusca lo más
dino,
que después del Austrino al
mundo es solo;
de los rayos de Apolo está
vestido
de beldad, guarnecido de
limpieza,
allí acaba y empieza lo infinito,
es Ave el sobrescrito sin
segundo,
á cuyo nombre el mundo se
alboroza,
de Mendoza, y Mendoza sólo
suena
donde la luz serena nos
alegra,
y á do la sombra negra nos
espanta;
agora te adelanta en el estilo,
y del copo tal hilo saca y
tuerce,
que por más que se esfuerce
en obra y pueda,
mi mano nunca exceda en otra
á ésta».
Dijo Natura, y presta al
mandamiento,
Lachesis, con contento y
regocijo,
sacó del escondrijo de Natura
aquella estambre pura, aquel
tesoro,
ciñó la rueca de oro, de oro el
huso,
y como se dispuso al
exercicio,
la mano en el oficio, assí á la
hora
la voz clara sonora á los
loores:
«Oid los moradores de la tierra
cuánta gloria se encierra en
esta vida,
que hilo por medida más que
humana;
aquí se cobra y gana el bien
passado,
que del siglo dorado fué
perdido
este bien, escogido por
amparo
de bondad y reparo de los
daños
que el tiempo en sus engaños
nos ofrezca;
porque aquí resplandezca la
luz muerta,
la verdad halla puerta y la
mentira
cuchillo que la admira y nos
consuela,
y la virtud espuela, el vicio
freno,
en quien lo menos bueno al
mundo espante:
crece, gentil Infante, Enrique
crece,
que Fortuna te ofrece tanta
parte,
no que pueda pagarte con sus
dones,
pero con ocasiones, de tal
suerte,
que el que quiera ofenderte ó
lo intentare,
si á tu ojo apuntare el suyo
saque
y su cólera aplaque con su
daño;
del propio y del extraño serás
visto,
y de todos bien quisto,
Infante mío;
mas ¡ay! que el desvarío del
tirano
mundo cruel, temprano te
amenaza,
tan áspero fin traza á tus
contentos,
que tendrás los tormentos por
consuelo;
cuando el Amor del suelo lo
más raro
te diere menos caro, hará trato
que tendrás por barato desta
fiesta
lo que la vida cuesta; mas
entiende
que si el Hado pretende darte
asalto,
y que te halles falto de la
gloria,
do estará tu memoria, el cielo
mismo
te infundirá un abismo de
cordura,
con que la desventura se
mitigue,
que aunque muerte te obligue,
cuando á hecho
rompa el ínclito pecho de tu
padre,
de claro aguelo y madre á
sentimiento,
y el duro acaecimiento que te
espera
de que á tus ojos muera la luz
bella,
de aquella, digo, aquella que
nacida
será tu misma vida muertos
ellos,
serás la Fénix dellos; crece
ahora,
que ya la tierra llora por
tenerte,
por tratarte y por verte y será
presto».
Dijo Lachesis esto, y yo te
digo,
que tú eres buen testigo en lo
que ha sido,
y si en lo no venido no
reposas,
esfuérzate en las cosas que te
ofenden,
que en el tiempo se entienden
las verdades
y el franco pecho en las
adversidades.
Ganoso anduvo Mendino de oir á

Sincero, y valiérale más no
haberlo hecho, porque una vez le
oyó y mil se arrepintió de haberle
oído. Imprimióse una imagen de
muerte en su corazón, que si
juntamente en él no estuviera la
de Elisa, cayera sin duda en el
postrer desmayo. Cruel fué
Sincero con Mendino en afirmarle
lo que fuera possible ser tan falso
como verdadero, mas pocos hay
que encubran su saber, aunque el
mostrarlo sea á costa del amigo.
Tal quedó el pastor, que no fué
poco poderse despedir del mago,
que con ofertas y abrazos salió
con ellos hasta passar el soto,
donde se quedó, y ellos volvieron
á la ribera, que al parecer de
Mendino ya no era lugar de
contento, sino de profundo dolor,
con quien anduvo luchando
muchos días por no poderle
excusar y por hacerlo de que
Elisa lo sintiesse. ¡Oh cuántas
veces el leal amador mostró
placer en el rostro, que en el alma
era rabia y ponzoña, y cuántas
veces su risa fué rayo, que
penetraba su pecho y aun los
mismos ratos de la presencia de
Elisa, que en muerte y afrenta le
fueran consuelo, le eran allí
desesperación, y así no tenía
gusto sin acibar ni trabajo con
alivio! «¿Es possible, decía, que
la celestial belleza de Elisa ha de
faltar á mis ojos, y que muerta
Elisa yo podré vivir, y mis
esperanzas juntas con Elisa se
harán polvo que lleve el viento?
Primero ruego á la deidad donde
todo se termina que mude en mí
la sentencia, y si no, yo me la doy,
Elisa, que ya que no sea
poderoso para que no mueras,
serélo á lo monos para no vivir».
Estas y tales razones decía
Mendino á solas con la boca, y
acompañado con el corazón, y
Elisa, inocente destos daños,
siempre se ocupaba en agradarle
y engañar á Galafrón, como
Mendino á Filis. Tres veces se
vistió el Tajo de verdura, y otras
tantas se despojó della, en tanto
que Elisa sin sobresalto, y
Mendino siempre con él, gozaron
de la mayor fe y amor que jamás
cupo en dos corazones humanos,
y al principio del tercero invierno,
cuando el fresno de hoja y el
campo de hermosura, juntamente
se despojó de vida el corazón de
Mendino no olvidado, no celoso ni
ausente menos que del alma,
porque adoleció Elisa de grave
enfermedad é inútiles los
remedios de la tierra, aquella
alma pura, buscando los
celestiales, desamparó aquel velo
de tan soberana natural belleza,
dejando un dolor universal sobre
la haz del mundo y una ventaja de
todo en el pecho del sin ventura
pastor, que aun para quejarse no
le quedó licencia, solo por la
soledad de los montes buscaba á
Elisa, y en lágrimas sacaba su
corazón por los ojos; allí, con
aquellas peñas endurecidas,
comunicaba su terneza, y en ellas
mismas ponía sentimiento. Con él
lloraron Siralvo, Castalio y
Coridón. Con él lloraron los
montes y los ríos; con él las
ninfas y pastoras, mas nadie
sentía que él lloraba. Gran
pérdida fué aquélla, y grande el
dolor de ser perdida, y muchos
los que perdieron. Esto se pudo
ver por las majadas de Sileno,
donde no quedó pastor que no
llorasse y gimiese, y
desamparando las cubiertas
cabañas, passaban la nieve y el
granizo por los montes las
noches, y por los yermos los días,
mayormente en el lugar do fué
Elisa sepultada, en una gran
piedra coronada de una alta
pirámide, á la sombra de algunos
árboles, y á la frescura de
algunas fuentes, todos los
rabadanes, pastoras y ninfas de
más estima cubrieron sus frentes
con dolor y bañaron con lágrimas
sus mejillas en compañía del
anciano padre, donde Mendino,
que más sentía, era quien menos
lo mostraba, por el decoro de
Elisa y el estorbo de Filis, y así
apartado, donde de nadie podía
ser visto ni oído, satisfacía á su
voluntad en lágrimas sin medida y
en quexas sin consuelo; y cuando
el bravo dolor le daba alguna
licencia, cantaba en vez de llorar,
y peor era su canto que si llorara,
que cuando el triste canta, más
llora, y más Mendino, que desta
suerte cantaba:
MENDINO
Yéndote, señora mía,
queda en tu lugar la muerte,
que mal vivirá sin verte
el que por verte vivía;
pero viendo
que renaciste muriendo,
muero yo con alegría.
En la temprana partida
vieja Fénix pareciste,
pues tu vida escarneciste
por escoger nueva vida:
sentiste la mejoría,
y en sintiéndola volaste,
mas ay de aquel que dejaste
triste, perdido y sin guía;
y entendiendo
que te cobraste muriendo,
se pierde con alegría.
El árbol fértil y bueno
no da su fruto con brío
hasta que es de su natío
mudado en mejor terreno;
por esto, señora mía,
en el jardín soberano
te traspuso aquella mano
que acá sembrado te había;
y entendiendo
que allí se goza viviendo,
muero aquí con alegría.
Bien sé, Elisa, que convino,
y te fué forzoso y llano
quitarte el vestido humano
para ponerte el divino;
mas quien contigo vestía
su alma, di, ¿qué hará,
ó qué consuelo tendrá
quien sólo en ti le tenía,
si no es viendo
que tú te vistes muriendo
de celestial alegría?
En esta ausencia mortal
tiene el consuelo desdén,
no porque te fuiste al bien,
mas porque quedé en el mal;
y es tan fiera la osadía
de mi rabiosa memoria,
que con el bien de tu gloria
el mal de ausencia porfía;
pero viendo
que el mal venciste muriendo,
al fin vence el alegría.
Es la gloria de tu suerte
la fuerza de mi cadena,
porque no cesse mi pena
con la presurosa muerte,
que ésta no me convenía;
mas entonces lo hiciera
cuando mil vidas tuviera
que derramar cada día;
pues sabiendo
la que ganaste muriendo,
las diera con alegría.
Vi tu muerte tan perdido,
que no sentí pena della,
porque de sólo temella
quedé fuera de sentido;
ya mi mal, pastora mía,
da la rienda al sentimiento;
siempre crece tu contento
y el rigor de mi agonía;
pero viendo
que estás gozosa viviendo,
mi tristeza es alegría.

Perception First Form of Mind Tyler Burge All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perception First Form of Mind Tyler Burge All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perception: First Form of Mind Tyler

4. Some Basics about Perceptual Systems 109

5. Perceptual Reference Requires Perceptual Attribution 131

10. First-­Formed Perception: Its Richness and Autonomy 367

13. Perceptual-­Level Representation and Categorization 483

Visual Sensory Memory 572

Again, the relevant perceptual-­level species are perception-­guided conation, perceptual-­

The book is resolutely a work in philosophy of science—specifically philosophy of

Animal Eye Grid

3.1. Geisler Contours 85

15.3c. Diagram of model for system of processing of visual executive-­control system’s

CSTM conceptual short-­term memory

Biological Function, Action, Sensing,

Biological Function, Sensing, and Perception 5

Biological Function, Sensing, and Perception 7

More specifically, I focus on perceptual representation. Perceptual representation is

Biological Function, Sensing, and Perception 9

In no way do I deny the import of non-­visual perceptual modalities. Different mo­dal­

Principal Aims of the Book

Five principal aims inform this book.

Principal Aims of the Book 11

representation—representation of size, shape, position, motion, speed, color, surface,

perceptual psychology. Some of these capacities produce intuitively familiar features of

Principal Aims of the Book 13

Fregean Source of Semantical Notions for Perception 15

The Fregean Source of Key Semantical Notions for Perception

Fregean Source of Semantical Notions for Perception 17

…while a sense is what is receptive of sensible [or perceptible] forms without

In Origins of Objectivity, chapter 9, I proposed a rough explication of what perception is.

Perception is sensory, objective representation—paradigmatically by individuals—

I say ‘paradigmatically by individuals’. I doubt that all perception is necessarily attributable

16 Origins of Objectivity, 369, where I write:

Perceptual States as Sensory States

Perception is sensory. It is a certain capacity or competence for discrimination as a result

Cantó Filardo, y Mendino quedó

Con el postrero acento de Filardo

Ganoso anduvo Mendino de oir á

You might also like

10. First-Formed Perception: Its Richness and Autonomy 367

13. Perceptual-Level Representation and Categorization 483

Again, the relevant perceptual-level species are perception-guided conation, perceptual-

15.3c. Diagram of model for system of processing of visual executive-control system’s

CSTM conceptual short-term memory

In no way do I deny the import of non-visual perceptual modalities. Different modal