Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:01:03.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Images: Content and Compositionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

ALISTAIR M. C. ISAAC
ALISTAIR M. C. ISAAC*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGHa.m.c.isaac@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Typical accounts of imagistic content have focused on the apparent analog character or continuous variability of images. In contrast, I consider the distinctive features of digital images, those composed of finite sets of discrete pixels. A rich source of evidence on digital imagistic content is found in the content-preserving algorithms that resize and reproduce digital images on computer screens and printers. I argue that these algorithms reveal a distinctive structural feature: digital images are always compositional (their parts contribute systematically to overall content), but never inverse compositional (atomic parts may be replaced nonsynonymously without changing content). This indicates a sharp contrast with linguistic representations, which may or may not be compositional, and may or may not be inverse compositional. I argue this result sheds new light on the claim that imagistic content is inherently perspectival.

Keywords

imagistic contentpictorial representationanalog/digital distinctioncompositionalitysynonymy
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 106 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2017 

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

Abell, Catharine. (2005) ‘Against Depictive Conventionalism’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 42, 185–97.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. (1970) ‘Part of What a Picture Is’. British Journal of Aesthetics, 10, 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. (1994) ‘Semantic Slack: What is Said and More’. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory (London: Routledge), 267–91.Google Scholar
Blumson, Ben. (2012) ‘Mental Maps’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 413–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumson, Ben. (2014) Resemblance and Representation: An Essay in the Philosophy of Pictures. Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Camp, Elisabeth. (2007) ‘Thinking with Maps’. Philosophical Perspectives 21: Philosophy of Mind, 145–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C.. (1999) Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. (1944) ‘The Concept of Group and the Theory of Perception’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5, 1–35.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul M. (2012) Plato's Camera. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry, and Lepore, Ernie. (2001) ‘Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's ‘Deflationary’ Theory’. Ratio, 14, 350–68.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. (1976) Languages of Art. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson, and Elgin, Catherine Z.. (1988) Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gunther, York H., ed. (2003) Essays on Nonconceptual Content. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haugeland, John. (1991) ‘Representational Genera’. In Ramsey, W., Stich, S. P., and Rumelhart, D. E. (eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory, 61–90. Reprinted in Having Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 171–206.Google Scholar
Hodges, Wilfrid. (1998) ‘Compositionality is not the Problem’. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 6, 7–33.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Robert. (1998) Picture, Image and Experience. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Isaac, Alistair M. C. (2013) ‘Objective Similarity and Mental Representation’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91, 683–704.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kent. (2006) ‘On the Nature of Reverse Compositionality’. Erkenntnis, 64, 37–60.Google Scholar
Johnson, Michael. (Forthcoming) ‘Compositionality’. In Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), Companion to Semantics (Wiley-Blackwell).Google Scholar
Kulvicki, John V. (2006) On Images: Their Structure and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lopes, Dominic. (1996) Understanding Pictures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, Krantz, David H., Suppes, Patrick, and Tversky, Amos. (1990) Foundations of Measurement, vol. 3. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Niederée, Reinhard. (2010) ‘ More than Three Dimensions: What Continuity Considerations Can Tell Us about Perceived Color’. In Cohen, Jonathan and Matthew, Mohan (eds.), Color Ontology and Color Science (Cambridge: MIT Press), 91–122.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. (2001) Invariances. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter. (2003) ‘Communication and Strong Compositionality’. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32, 287–322.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter, and Westerståhl, Dag. (2010a) ‘Compositionality I: Definitions and Variants’. Philosophy Compass, 5/3, 250–64.Google Scholar
Pagin, Peter, and Westerståhl, Dag. (2010b) ‘Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems’. Philosophy Compass, 5/3, 265–82.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. (1986) ‘Analogue Content’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 60, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, Michael. (2009) ‘Predication and Cartographic Representation’. Synthese, 169, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. (1973) ‘Congruence of Meaning’. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 46, 21–38.Google Scholar
Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. (2013) ‘Compositionality’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/compositionality/.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. (2008) Scientific Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. (1998) ‘On Mathematical Proofs of the Vacuity of Compositionality’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 635–43.Google Scholar
Westerståhl, Dag. (2015) ‘Questions about Compositionality’. In Schroeder-Heister, P., Heinzmann, G., Hodges, W., and Bour, P.-E. (eds.). Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress (London: College Publications), 123–47.Google Scholar
Zeimbekis, John. (2012) ‘Digital Pictures, Sampling, and Vagueness: The Ontology of Digital Pictures’. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 70, 43–53.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. (2012) ‘Compositionality Problems and How to Solve Them’. In Hinzen, Wolfram, Machery, Edouard, and Werning, Markus (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 81–108.Google Scholar