
Organizers
This event is supported by York University’s Vision: Science to Applications (VISTA) program and by Johns Hopkins University's William H. Miller III Department of Philosophy and Vision Sciences Group.
aboutus
The past decade has seen a resurgence in conversation between vision science and philosophy of perception on questions of fundamental interest to both fields, such as: What do we see? What is seeing for? What makes seeing different from remembering, deciding or imagining? But opportunities for conversation between vision scientists and philosophers are still hard to come by. The phiVis workshop is a forum for promoting and expanding this interdisciplinary dialogue. Philosophers of perception can capitalize on the experimental knowledge of working vision scientists, while vision scientists can take advantage of the opportunity to connect their research to long-standing philosophical questions.
Short talks by philosophers of perception that engage with the latest research in vision science will be followed by discussion with a slate of vision scientists, on topics such as probabilistic representation in perception, perceptual constancy, amodal completion, multisensory perception, visual adaptation, and much more.
Schedule
Chairs:
Kevin Lande (York)
Chaz Firestone (Johns Hopkins)
1:00PM
Opening remarks
- Kevin Lande (York University)
- Chaz Firestone (Johns Hopkins)
1:05PM
Matthias Michel (MIT) | Aphantasia as Imagery Blindsight
People with aphantasia report no visual imagery. They are also surprisingly good at tasks that seem to require it. I hold that aphantasia involves unconscious mental imagery. I argue that aphantasia is the mind's eye equivalent of blindsight, and that the alternatives are worse. This proposal has not been universally welcomed. I consider the relevant objections and find them wanting. Part of the answer is to recognize that, just as blindsight is not simply normal vision minus consciousness, aphantasia is not simply normal mental imagery minus consciousness. Most notably, individuals with aphantasia do not themselves believe that they have mental imagery capacities. This absence of metacognitive sensitivity to their own capacities distorts how these capacities manifest in experiments.
- Comments from Wilma Bainbridge (University of Chicago)
- Q&A
1:40PM
Will Davies (Oxford) | A Theory of Stuff Perception: Stuff Fields vs. Object Files
Philosophers and vision scientists have spent much time discussing object perception—paradigmatic cases of seeing solid, bounded material things, like tables and chairs. By contrast, there has been a relative neglect of perceptions of uncountable stuff like water, snow, mud, mist, smoke, sand, rubble, and metal. This talk will sketch a theory of stuff perception to complement our theories of object perception. First, drawing on the syntax and semantics of mass nouns, I isolate a characteristic ‘stuffy’ representational profile, which is also reflected in stuff perception. I propose that perception represents stuff under distinct mass-like attributives and pseudopartitive-like constructions, mirroring the profile of natural language mass nouns and pseudopartitives. Second, I propose that stuffs are perceptually represented by field-like structures that encode continuous distributions of material that admit many possible partitions—depending, for example, on patterns in density, flow, or accumulation—rather than discrete individuals with a canonical decomposition into parts. These stuff field representations explain the distinctive dynamics and organization of stuff perception, as contrasted with the object files standardly posited in theories of object perception.
- Comments from Vivian Paulun (University of Wisconsin - Madison)
- Q&A
2:15PM
Frédérique de Vignemont (Institut Jean-Nicod) | Seeing the Future
When we see the motion of a ball looming toward us, is there a sense in which we might be said to be visually aware of the impending collision? One may be immediately tempted to reply negatively if one assumes that we can visually experience only what is visible and what is happening now. Yet, I shall propose here that we can be visually aware of the close future qua the future. To do so, I will propose that perceptual anticipation is a constitutive part of visual experiences of looming objects by enabling a temporal form of amodal completion of the on-going motion. I will then assess the temporal implications of the intrinsic anticipatory component of visual experiences of looming objects and propose that visual experiences can be oriented toward the future for a similar reason as fear.
- Comments from William Warren (Brown)
- Q&A
No need to RSVP
MEDIA
Recordings of Past Events
Recordings of Past Events


phiVis 5: Philosophy of Vision Science 2025

phiVis 4: Philosophy of Vision Science Workshop 2024

phiVis 3: Philosophy of Vision Science 2023















