A theory of cognitive contact

I suppose the most ideal theory of cognitive contact would have the mind somehow extend out in to the world and literally rub itself on the things it appears to be directed at. Assuming the mind is in some way contained in the brain, this does not seem possible.

A close second would be if ordinary objects managed to somehow permeate the skull and, as it were, rub themselves on the mind. As stated, this latter option may also seem problematic. However, I take it that a more refined version is precisely what many theories aim for. Direct realists, for instance, hold that ordinary objects are the constituents of perceptions, and thus that what goes on in perception is partly constituted by ordinary objects and states of affairs. Representationalists, who posit abstract objects as contents, also think the external world manages to imprint itself on the mind.71 _This

latter view, however, holds that abstract rather than ordinary objects manage to do the imprinting. This may seem to be an improvement on the ordinary objects view: perhaps something about their abstract nature allows such things to permeate the skull in a way that ordinary objects certainly cannot. However, without some supplemental story about how the imprinting of these abstract objects on our minds manages to secure our cognitive contact, the abstract object view will need to say more about the notion of cognitive contact I am after.

71 _{Again, talk of imprinting on the mind is talk of something over and above}

any causal effects the external world has on the mind. With the exception of some ardent idealists, everyone agrees that the external world causes things in us. But this causing is not what constitutes cognitive contact, since the world can cause internal changes in non-cognitive things.

7.2.1 Points of Evaluation

One way to understand the problem of cognitive contact is as a problem about how we manage to peek outside our heads and access the world beyond our skins.72 _{Understanding the problem this way highlights the}

closely related issue of what the world beyond our skin is like. That is, being in cognitive contact with the external world would seem to imply some understanding of that world: cognitive contact would seem to obtain when what is going on in the external world and what is going on in the head somehow line up, fit or are otherwise congruent. And that requires a substantial view about what the external world is like. Take, for example, the view that mental representation is a matter of forming a picture in one’s mind that resembles the aspects of the external world that are represented. In this case, cognitive contact would obtain when the mental picture is sufficiently similar to the external world (or parts thereof). Clearly, this view assumes a particular view of the external world: It is such that a veridical mental picture can resemble it.

These are deep issues that concern not only theories of mentality, but also metaphysical issues surrounding realism and idealism, and I cannot possibly address everything at issue between realism and idealism on the one hand, and what various theories say about cognitive contact on the other. The point here is to highlight that any account of cognitive contact will, either overtly or by implication, say something about the external world. Hence one way to evaluate theories of cognitive contact is according to how they conceive of the external world with which we are in contact.

Closely related, is what a theory of cognitive contact implies about our knowledge of the external world and the mechanisms that secure it. Ideally, the kind of cognitive contact we have with the external world should, in some way, make possible a relatively robust knowledge thereof. That is, it would be ideal for our theory of cognitive contact to make possible the acquisition of bonafide knowledge about the items we are in contact with in such a way as to leave the mechanism whereby we acquire that knowledge transparent, and clear enough to distinguish bad cases—cases where the failure of this mechanism explains why we fail to acquire knowledge in certain cases.73

An ideal account should also either accord with, or give some sort of explanation of, the common-sense view that our cognitive contact with the external world is immediate and direct. At the very least, it certainly seems

that our cognitive contact with the world is immediate and direct. That being said, one’s view need not be that of direct realism. It should, however, explain why direct realism appears to be the unreflective default.

I suppose too that parsimony should be included on our list. My only caveat here is that this last point should figure lower on the list of ideal criteria—a final tiebreaker if you will. My reason for this is simply that I think parsimony is a good explanatory principle, but is not necessarily the gold standard for ontology (Quine and Ockham notwithstanding).

My guess is that there are a whole host of other criteria and ideal cases we might add. For instance, we might want to add that an account of cognitive contact should not appeal to any naturalistically problematic entities or

73 _{This last point is really a corollary of the bonafide knowledge requirement.}

Knowledge should ideally be distinguishable from apparent knowledge. I suppose one might be content just knowing that we can have knowledge, even though we might not know we have it.

relations. We would not, for instance, want to count a theory as being ideal if it managed to satisfy all other criteria by endorsing divine occasionalism. A theory that appealed to vital spirits, or the ether, or ghosts, too would be out. I hesitate, however, to include a naturalism proviso, since, assuming that entities that exist outside of space and time, such as Platonic universals, are not natural, this criterion would rule out any view on which such entities played a role in establishing cognitive contact.