Slack:
https://bcccd.slack.com/archives/C02PQ4Z0ZM0Zoltan Jakab 1, Szabolcs Kiss 21 Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
2 University Pécs, Pécs, Hungary
In level-1 perspective taking (L1PT) the question is which objects in a scene someone else can see and which ones they can not. Level-2 perspective-taking (L2PT) is assessing how certain objects appear to an agent. Regarding L1PT and L2PT, two-system views assume that L1PT does not, whereas L2PT does require metarepresentation. While L1PT seems automatic, and is subject to altercentric intrusion, L2PT appears cognitively more demanding. A variety of nativism, on the contary claims that both types involve metarepresentation, and the real difference between them lies in the performance load imposed by the different tasks. A third possible view, however, is that neither L1PT nor L2PT, in its present form, requires metarepresentation. Current L2PT tasks typically assign different viewing angles to different agents. Moreover, just as L1PT may rely on a spatial relation between object and agent, assessing the vantage point of an agent (hence how an object looks to them) may rely on which side of an object faces the agent’s eye. What really does take metarepresentation is, for example, assessing whether someone else experiences the same visual illusion as one does. This view may indeed be too extreme as sensitivity to blindfolding itself indicates that some notion of seeing is being exercised by the subject, beyond merely assessing spatial relations. Still, L2PT, that is, vantage-point-difference tasks may also be simplified so that they need minimal working memory load. We propose to discuss whether these observations support hard-nosed nativism, or some form of a more austere view.
- Session 5, Wednesday, 12 Jan, 07:00 - 08:30 (UTC +0)
- Session 3, Tuesday, 11 Jan, 13:00 - 14:30 (UTC +0)
