Imagery, the Imagination and Experience

Abstract

Visualizings, the simplest imaginings which employ visual imagery, have certain characteristic features; they are perspectival, for instance. Also, it seems that some but not all of our visualizings are imaginings of seeings. But it has been forcefully argued, for example by M.G.F. Martin and Christopher Peacocke, that all visualizings are imaginings of visual sensations. I block these arguments by providing an account of visualizings which allows for their perspectival nature and other features they typically have, but which also explains how we can visualize things without thereby imagining visual sensations.

Perceptual content and the content of mental imagery

“…I will not argue against the Dependency Thesis here (but see Noordhof 2002;Currie and Ravenscroft 2002;Gregory 2010)-my aim is to give the most plausible version of the Similar Content View. But I will return to the Dependency Thesis in the last section and compare its explanatory force with my version of the Similar Content View.…”

The Two Faces of Mental Imagery

“…& Arcangeli 2015b we offer an attitudinal interpretation of Peacocke's view); and attacked by several authors (see,Noordhof 2002;Ravenscroft 2002 andGregory 2010).…”

Visualizing and Visualizing Representations

“…To quote Dominic Gregory, “How is that possible? How can a single visual image, in showing how things look, characterize a [perception] on one occasion, and a tree but no [perception] on another?” (, 738). An obvious and ready‐to‐hand explanation is that these are not two different imaginative projects but rather a longer and shorter description of the same project.…”

“…The contemporary debate began when Bernard Williams, in his paper “Imagination and the Self” (), expressed skepticism about the dependency thesis. In response, the thesis has been strongly defended by Christopher Peacocke () and M. G. F. Martin (), while Williams has been supported by Richard Wollheim (), Paul Noordhof (), Rob Hopkins (), and Dominic Gregory (). The debate is subtle and elusive.…”