by Nigel J.T. Thomas
Published in Humanities (vol. 3, no2, 2014, 132–184).
A theory of the structure and cognitive function of the human imagination that attempts to do justice to traditional intuitions about its psychological centrality is developed, largely through a detailed critique of the theory propounded by Colin McGinn. Like McGinn, I eschew the highly deflationary views of imagination, common amongst analytical philosophers, that treat it either as a conceptually incoherent notion, or as psychologically trivial. However, McGinn fails to develop his alternative account satisfactorily because (following Reid, Wittgenstein and Sartre) he draws an excessively sharp, qualitative distinction between imagination and perception, and because of his flawed, empirically ungrounded conception of hallucination. His arguments in defense of these views are rebutted in detail, and the traditional, passive, Cartesian view of visual perception, upon which several of them implicitly rely, is criticized in the light of findings from recent cognitive science and neuroscience. It is also argued that the apparent intuitiveness of the passive view of visual perception is a result of mere historical contingency. An understanding of perception (informed by modern visual science) as an inherently active process enables us to unify our accounts of perception, mental imagery, dreaming, hallucination, creativity, and other aspects of imagination within a single coherent theoretical framework.
Keywords: imagination; mental imagery; mental image; perception; eye movements; active vision; enactive perception; seeing as; dreams; hallucination
Download from here (open access)
A revised and updated, peer reviewed version of the article once available in draft from this page has now been published in the online open access journal Humanities (volume 3, no. 2, 2014, pp. 132–184; doi:10.3390/h3020132). Please download it (for free) from the journal page here. The draft version is still available here, but the published version supersedes it, and only the published version should now be cited. The main differences between the draft and the published version are in section 5, which has been quite extensively rearranged and rewritten, but there are numerous smaller differences elsewhere too.
Please download the 23 April 2014 "updated" version from the main link on the Humanities page, not the "original" version, first published there on 15 April 2014 (and available via a subsidiary link).In addition to suffering from some (very minor) formatting errors, the "original" version omits some significant bibliographical information from a couple of items in the reference list (all due to an overzealous copy editor making "corrections" after I returned the proofs). All this is corrected in the "updated" version. Otherwise, the two versions there should be identical. (I do not know why they left the "original" available.)
I understand that it is intended that Humanities will, at some point, move to an open access, pay-to-publish business model, and it may have done so by the time you read this. However, at the time my article was submitted, and when it was published, this was not the case. I did not have to pay to get this article published, and you will not have to pay to download it, either now or in the future. - N.J.T.T.
Return to Home Page:
Imagination, Mental Imagery, Consciousness, Cognition:
Science, Philosophy & History.