# Unnamed Document  ## Metadata - Author: [[readwise.io]] - Full Title: Unnamed Document - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Summary: The manuscript discusses the phenomenological comparison between vision and audition in relation to amodal completion and mental imagery. It explores how we mentally complete hidden or occluded parts of visual objects and sounds through imagery, examining the similarities and differences between visual and auditory perception. The study emphasizes the subjective nature of phenomenological considerations. - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/152462754 ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > see also ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1bgd0eq177cwfdpn58phk)) - Note: suggests that these authors are in agreement with nanay when they are not > Nanay solves the problem by saying that we represent those parts by means of mental imagery (se ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsqwgk8cbdst38qev57pe46r)) > r R ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1ats5jbkheah8sf1kstfg)) > r Rev ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsqwg1f678q8ct7pj2g0yw89)) > I will not discuss Nanay’s view from an empirical perspective as my objective is to show that we complete the occluded parts of a visual object by virtue of mental imagery from a phenomenological point of view, that is, by investigating how amodal completion seems to appear to us.1 Furthermore, unlike Nanay, as I will show by discussing the case of audition, I will not take for granted that my conclusions apply also to sense modalities different from vision. I will leave the study of sense modalities other than audition and vision aside. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1dgjd31ps50gp7pntmk2t)) - Note: not well written. How is the author's view different from Nanay's. What is audition's role in this argument? > The notion of mental imagery I use is in line with Langland-Hassand’s (2020) and Jones and Wilkinson’s (2020). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1gqe6g1zg23eadac6nmes)) - Note: why is this in bold? > “in th ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1m30414m0hf82y8s3sbw9)) - Note: for the rest of the sentence: what? > Let us start with some considerations on visual imagery. When we imagine an apple, it seems that we visualize it “in the mind’s eye”. Even though it is not the simplest case of visualizing, we might be able to localize the imagined object in our egocentric space (Martin 2002: 410), as when we have to decide where to locate a painting on a wall. We simply visualize the painting to be in a specific location outside our mind, that is, on the wall. When we imagine a visual object to be in our egocentric space and want to correctly locate it somewhere in our surroundings, we need to be able to make an interaction between this object and the real spatial surroundings where we want the object to be located. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn2r1mjgkrqrwr737njkmwh)) > foreground. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1repr7hp02g2ywxanqt7b)) - Note: what? > That is, if one of them is seen in the background and, thus, looks blurry, we cannot make the right interaction between the two objects so that we can properly fulfill the task of assessing where the painting should be hung on the wall. Seeing both objects in the foreground is a necessary condition for the perceiver to make them interact as they need to see them in high resolution in order to correctly perform the task. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1qha2cyxdx90vyxby42s0)) - Note: deeply unclear. > One may want to see something in the foreground since that something is regarded as meaningful, and is seen, thus, in greater detail. On the contrary, one may want to see something in the background because that something is considered as not particularly meaningful, and is seen, thus, as much less detailed (Jennings 2014: 1269). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn1vhpta5hfbbq1nq7z7emp)) - Note: this is a mess. > . Despite differences in mental imageries, we cannot exclude that perception and imagery represent the same content. Similarly, one can visually represent the interaction between two objects as indistinguishable from the interaction between a real object and an imagined one. I ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn3d8wr1fqmq8wh2yk7v3fk)) > . Environmental sounds are usually distinguished from speech sounds, which are usually taken to be the sounds that human beings utter and that are characterized by having linguistic meaning, and musical sounds, which are usually taken to be the sounds of which musical compositions are made. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn2067992ry3srxmccvtm2z)) - Note: have i read this before? > , it also seems possible to imagine the interaction ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hsn3w39s2wzjamyz3j81kae7))