Obviously, you see the speckles. Everyone agrees about that.The question is whether you see each and every speckle that is in view.
Tye says, "No. You see the speckles, but you don't see each and every speckle, at least not at the same time."
Dretske says, "Yes, you do. You see each and every speckle."
So, who is right, and why? (Note that both agree that you do not see the hen as having, say, thirty six speckles (or however many there are in view).)
In a way I agree with Tye, but I think when he says that you don not see all of the speckles at the same time, I would argue that that is the same as saying you are not focusing your attention on all the speckles at the same time. As I look at the image, I notice that there are speckles on up thr neck, near the tail, on near the center of the hen's body. If I focus my view on the speckles near the hen's neck, I can still point to another spot, despite its being more blurry than the spot I have in my focused view.
ReplyDelete"Do you see each and every speckle that is in view?"
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, the odder the question seems.
If I am just looking at the picture of the hen, and that question does not occur to me, I am not looking at each speckle, and do not "see" each speckle in the way the word seems to be used in this context.
If I am looking at the hen, and someone asks the question, then my reaction is to try to look at all of the speckles on the hen. Do I then see every speckle? It depends. It is perfectly possible for me to see every speckle on the hen, and it is also possible for me to miss some speckles. In the latter case it seems that I would only realize that fact if I later noticed another speckle, or if it were pointed out to me by another, in which case a natural reaction would be to say "I didn't see that one." So, in that case I didn't see every speckle, but in some cases I might.
(If we are using the word "see" stripped of all conscious (and linguistic) processes, referring merely to the initial (non conscious, etc) impression the speckles make on a person, it seems impossible to make sense of the question using conscious, linguistic memory as a tool. And I'm not sure where to go from there.)
These points may be banal or even misguided (and please correct me if I'm mistaken about something), but they are conspiring to prevent me from thinking about this question in the way that I'm "supposed" to.
is tye's concern simply a matter of the inability the divide one's conscious attention? because it seems as though i could certainly "see each and every speckle" up to a certain number of speckles. if it is indeed simply a matter of separating consciousness, then arguably i may not be aware of the hen once i focus on the speckles, and this doesn't seem to be true, does it?
ReplyDeletealso, i wonder to what extent tye is willing to hold to his argument, and in what ways. for example, what if it is a matter of seeing many "crowds?" i am in the library right now. i would argue (and i'm not sure how many sensible people would not) that right now i can in fact see, simultaneously, that there are pillars, walls, windows, books, tables, chairs, computers, and carpeting in this room. tye's objection seems less reasonable to me in this circumstance.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to go with Dretske here. I think you do see each and every speckle. It all comes down to the difference between physically seeing and consciously acknowledging.
ReplyDeleteOne may have trouble acknowledging specific speckles or may only acknowledge that there are a cluster of speckles. But these are problems of acknowledgment.
As long as the speckles produce or reflect light that enters your visual medium, you see them. Simple as that. There is visual information from the speckles entering your brain. Whether or not you attend to that information is a different story but does not affect the fact that you actually do see the speckles.
I feel like the question do you see the speckles is ambiguous is respect to time. If I were asked if I saw the speckles I would say yes.
ReplyDeleteIf I were asked do I see each one, I would assume I would be given ample time to look at the hen and of course I would answer yes.
Unless time is better explained I would even venture to say yes, I see "n" speckles on the hen.
Clarifying my earlier post, I would argue that not only do you see all the speckles collectively, but you also see "each one."
ReplyDeleteEven if you stare at one and are unable to mentally acknowledge the rest such that you can't count them all, as long as the light from the speckles enters your eyes, then you see all the speckles individually and collectively.