Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:27:04.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Positing numerosities may be metaphysically extravagant; positing representation of numerosities is not

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2021

Simon A. B. Brown*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD21218, USA. simonabbrown@gmail.com; www.simonbrownphilosophy.com

Abstract

Clarke and Beck (C&B) assume that approximate number system (ANS) representations should be assigned referents from our scientific ontology. However, many representations, both in perception and cognition, do not straightforwardly refer to such entities. If we reject C&B's assumption, many possible contents for ANS representations besides number are compatible with the evidence C&B cite.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, J. M., & Farell, B. (2009). Is perceptual space inherently non-Euclidean? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(2), 8691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, C. S. (2016). Perceptual relativity. Philosophical Topics, 44, 1792000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (2016). The skewed view from here: Normal geometrical misperception. Philosophical Topics, 44(2), 231300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. W. (2005). Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx.Google Scholar
Prettyman, A. (2019). Perceptual precision. Philosophical Psychology, 32(6), 923944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar