Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T12:24:24.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marr’s Theory of Vision and the Argument From Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Peter A. Morton
Peter A. Morton*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A central aspect of the computational theory of vision developed by Marr and his coworkers is the use made of contingent regularities in the physical environment to explain how the visual system determines the shape and location of objects in the world on the basis of the spatial organization of the retinal image. Marr (1982) refers to these environmental regularities as “natural constraints” and “physical assumptions.” In this paper I am concerned with recent arguments concerning the implications of this feature of Marr’s theory for understanding psychological explanation. Burge (1986) claims that Marr’s use of natural constraints shows the theory to be nonindividualistic, in the sense that the individuation of psychological states depends essentially on the objects and conditions of the world external to the subject. While it does capture an important aspect of Marr’s theory, Burge’s account is misleadingly incomplete. To see this it is useful to compare the issue of individualism with the question whether the theory is compatible with methodological solipsism as a research strategy.

Type
Part V. Perception and Psychology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 154 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank William Demopoulos for many helpful suggestions and improvements. G. Keith Humphrey first directed my attention to Gibson.

References

Austin, J.L. (1962). Sense and Sensibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1986). “Individualism and Psychology.” The Philosophical Review 95: 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1980). “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Psychology.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences 3. Reprinted in Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science pp.225-53. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. and Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1981). “How Direct is Visual Perception? Some Reflections on Gibson’s ‘Ecological Approach’.” Cognition 9: 139–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1988). “Marr’s Computational Theory of Vision.” Philosophy of Science 55: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mace, W.M. (1977). “James Gibson’s Strategy for Perceiving: Ask Not What’s Inside Your Head But What Your Head’s Inside Of.” In Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. Edited by Shaw, R. and Bransford, J. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision, New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar