book reviews 259 BOOK REVIEWS Action in Perception. alva noe¨. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2004. ix ϩ 277 p. Cloth $38.00.* This is a charming and ambitious book that combines careful attention to the phenomenology of experience with an appreciation of the psychology and neuroscience of perception. In some of its aims—for example, to show problems with a rigid version of a view of visual perception as an “inverse optics” process of constructing a static 3-D representation from static 2-D information on the retina—it succeeds admirably. As Noe¨ points out, vision is a process that depends on interactions between the perceiver and the environment and involves contributions from sensory systems other than the eye. He is at pains to note that vision is not passive. His analogy with touch is to the point: touch involves skillful probing and movement, and so does vision, although less obviously and in my view less centrally so. This much is certainly widely accepted among vision scientists—although mainstream vision scientists (represented, for example, by Stephen Palmer’s excellent textbook1) view these points as best seen within a version of the inverse optics view that takes inputs as nonstatic and as including motor instructions (for example, involving eye movements and head movements).2 The kind of point that Noe¨ raises is viewed as important at the margins, but as not disturbing the main lines of the picture of vision that descends— with many changes—from the pioneering work of David Marr in the 1980s (and before him, from Helmholtz). But Noe¨ shows little interest in mainstream vision science, focusing on nonmainstream ideas in the science of perception, specifically ideas from the anti-representational psychologist J.J. Gibson, and also drawing on Wittgenstein and the phenomenological tradition. There is a sense throughout the book of revolution, of upsetting the applecart. This is a review from the point of view of the applecart. * I am grateful to Tyler Burge, John Campbell, Jakob Hohwy, Sean Kelly, Alva Noe¨, Christopher Peacocke, and Susanna Siegel for comments on a earlier draft. 1 Vision Science: From Photons to Phenomenology (Cambridge: MIT, 1999). 2 See, for example, Palmer’s treatment of position constancy (objects do not appear to jump when the eye moves), on pp. 339–43, and optic flow, pp. 507–09. Helmholtz showed that the information that the brain uses to distinguish a sudden jerky motion of an object in the environment from a sudden jerky motion of the eye does not come from “afferent” (that is, input) sensors in the muscles that move the eye but rather from “efferent” motor commands to the eye. His experiment was simple: use the finger to move the eye, pushing from the side. The world appears to move, sup- porting the “efference copy” theory. As Palmer notes, an orthodox treatment can easily handle such inputs. 0022-362X/05/0205/259–72 2005 The Journal of Philosophy, Inc. 260 the journal of philosophy My comments are in two parts, one mainly a priori, the other largely empirical: first, I will consider Noe¨’s version of externalism in the light of the distinction between causation and constitution. Second, I will argue that on the most obvious reading of Noe¨’s view, one that identifies perceptual experience with the skilled bodily exercise of “sensorimotor knowledge” (I will leave off the scare quotes in what follows) that includes visually guided action, there are empirical results that suggest that the exercise of such know-how does not reflect the phenomenology of con- scious vision. i. causation and constitution Tyler Burge, Saul Kripke, and Hilary Putnam have argued for externalism about meaning and content: to take a familiar flamboyant version of it, two people with molecularly identical brains could nonetheless have different ‘water’-thoughts because of differences in their physical and/ or social environments. Fred Dretske, William Lycan, and Michael Tye hold that the phenomenal character of an experience is or at least supervenes on the experience’s representational content, and so they use the Burge-Kripke-Putnam sort of externalism to support externalism about experience. They are Representationists about phenomenal char- acter in the sense that they hold that the phenomenal character of an experience is exhausted by its representational content. Noe¨ argues for what is in one way at least a more radical form of externalism about experience. His externalism is vehicle externalism rather than content externalism. The vehicles of contents are the physical items that have or express the contents—sentences for example. His analogy is to the view of Andy Clark and David Chalmers3 that memory and calculation constitutively include props such as a diary or a pencil and paper. Similarly, according to Noe¨’s view, the skilled active body partially constitutes the vehicle of experience. Noe¨ sometimes tries to frame the debate in a way that has his side arguing for a mere possibility, for example, “I have been arguing that, for at least some experiences, the physical substrate of the experience may cross boundaries, implicating neural, bodily, and environmental features” (221). However, these specks of caution float on a sea of exuberant declarations, such as “A neuroscience of perceptual consciousness must be an enactive neuro- science—that is, a neuroscience of embodied activity, rather than a neuroscience of brain activity” (227). 3 “The Extended Mind,” Analysis, lviii (1998): 7–19. Clark and Chalmers do not apply their vehicle externalism to experience. book reviews 261 The leading idea of the book—what Noe¨ calls the enactive view4—is a constitutive claim about experience: “Perceptual experience, according to the enactive approach, is an activity of exploring the environment drawing on knowledge of sensorimotor dependencies and thought” (228). What are sensorimotor dependencies (or contingencies) and what is knowledge of them? First, the ‘sensori’ in ‘sensorimotor’ is not supposed to be taken to be itself mentalistic. Noe¨ is wary of the pitfall for his view of tacitly appealing to the content of experience in explaining the sensorimotor knowledge that is supposed to serve to explain the content of experience, so wary that he appears to adopt not one but two pieces of machinery for avoiding it. He says that strictly speaking sensorimotor knowledge— knowledge of sensorimotor contingencies—is knowledge of “the way sensory stimulation varies as you move” (78, emphasis added). The sensory side of the sensori-motor division is also spelled out in terms of what he calls “appearances,” which are supposed to be totally objective. For example, the shape appearance of an object is given by any one of its projection on a plane that is orthogonal to the line of sight, for example, a projection on an imaginary window interposed between the eye and the object. Thus, the objective shape appearance of a round plate seen at an angle is the elliptical projection on such a plane, and so the plate objectively “looks” elliptical (from a certain angle). Sensorimotor knowledge is know-how concerning how objective appearances change as you move and the things you see move. The model for this know-how is knowing how to dance or gesture. The upshot is that perceptual experience, according to the enactive view, is the practical bodily exercise of sensorimotor know- how (see especially §3.5).5 Noe¨’s controversial conclusion is that perceptual experience does not constitutively supervene on the brain alone but only 4 This view has been pursued in other works by Noe¨ and his collaborators, notably in Susan Hurley’s Consciousness in Action (Cambridge: Harvard, 1998); and in J.K. O’Regan and Noe¨, “A Sensorimotor Approach to Vision and Visual Consciousness,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, xxiv, 5 (2001): 939–73. See also Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind (Cambridge: MIT, 1991); and Dan Dennett’s somewhat skeptical review of this book in American Journal of Psychology, cvi (1993): 121–26. An early precursor is H.L. Dreyfus, “Why Computers Must Have Bodies in Order to Be Intelligent,” Review of Metaphysics, xxi (September 1967) 13–32. 5 Christopher Peacocke noted (in conversation) that the devices I just mentioned do not avoid circularity. If you read about how to remove an appendix, that (plausibly) does not affect what it is like to see people who have appendixes, but it does add to one’s knowledge of sensorimotor contingencies. The only way to rule out this booklearning kind of sensorimotor knowledge as determining the phenomenology of perception is to say that it is not implied by the perception itself. But that brings in the sensorimotor knowledge in explaining the perceptual content rather than the other way round. 262 the journal of philosophy on the active body that is required for the skilled exercise of sensori- motor knowledge. Although I have described Noe¨ as holding a constitutive externalist view of perceptual experience, I should say that there is considerable variation in the statement of the enactive view. Sometimes it is stated as a constitutive view about perception rather than perceptual experience: “perceiving is constituted by the exercise of a range of sensorimotor skills.”6 In addition to identifying perceptual experience with the exercise of sensorimotor skills, that is, skilled bodily exercise of sensorimotor knowledge, Noe¨ also says that perceptual experience “draws on,” is “con- strained by,” and is “enabled” by sensorimotor knowledge.