The position that Stokes’s Thinking and Perceiving aims to overthrow is committed to the idea that the facts about one’s propositional attitudes and the facts about one’s perceptual experiences are alike grounded in facts about representations (in various formats) that are being held in a short or long term memory store, so that computations can be performed upon them. Claims about modularity are claims about the distinctness of these memory stores, and of these representations. One way in which to reject those claims is to deny only that distinctness. A more radical way would be to reject the underlying idea that facts about perception and facts about propositional attitudes are alike grounded in facts about stored representations. Although the more radical approach might seem to face a problem concerning causal efficacy, I suggest that the way is open for Stokes to take it.
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
Fahle, M., & Daum, I. (2002). Perceptual learning in amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 40(8), 1167–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00231-7
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman.
Stokes, D. (2021). Thinking and perceiving: On the malleability of the mind. Routledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Christopher Mole