My paper opens with the contention that seemingly opposing arguments can often reflect alternative vantages of a larger meta-perspective from which both views can be understood. I illustrate this point using the example of reversible images that can be seen as corresponding to two entirely different objects depending on one’s perspective. I argue that when one recognizes that both vantages are true from their particular perspective, one gains an understanding of the larger context (i.e., a meta-perspective). Although most of my examples are perceptual illustrations, I suggest that there is a close correspondence between the processes involved in perspective taking in perceptual and conceptual domains, and that an appreciation of meta-perspectives in the perceptual domain may help the formulation of meta-perspectives in the conceptual domain. In the spirit of this argument I suggest that the long-standing debate between approaches that emphasize the subjective first-person perspective of experience and those that emphasize the objective third-person perspective of science, may be akin to debating which direction the dancer is rotating in the spinning dancer illusion (see figure 6 in Schooler this collection). In both cases, it simply depends on your perspective. Taken from the perspective of the individual, understanding consciousness necessarily invites a reliance on introspection and first-person analysis. Taken from the perspective of conventional third-person science, understanding consciousness necessarily requires objectively observable facts (e.g., behaviors, physiological responses) that can be derived independently of any single individuals’ experience
I argue that both of these views have merit, that both researchers and schools of thought have debated (often vehemently) about which of these two vantages is more appropriate, and that part of the heat of this controversy may stem from people’s disinclination to switch back and forth between perspectives and thereby gain a larger view that treats neither as decisively superior.
Gottschling rejects the notion that the alternative perspectives afforded by reversible images has relevance to conceptualizing the challenges of reconciling first- and third-person perspectives. Her difficulty with this analogy stems (at least in part) from her view that the meaning of “perspective” in these two contexts does not align. As she puts it: “Because it rests on a purely metaphorical use of ‘perspective’, the analogy does not go through” (Gottschling this collection, p. 18). To be sure there are significant differences between the meaning of “perspective” in the context of perceptual experience, such as reversible images, and conceptual ideas, such as the difference between first- and third-person approaches to the study of consciousness. However, I argue that there are some deep parallels between the meanings of “perspective” in these two contexts that make the analogy a useful one. I’ll begin by considering the broader issue of the parallels between perceptual and conceptual perspectives and then the more specific question of how these parallels might usefully apply to the conceptual distinction between first- and third-person perspectives.
Critically, in both perceptual and conceptual contexts “perspective” is defined by a frame-of-reference that determines how the constituent elements are understood and related to one another, as well as which elements are taken as central and which as more peripheral. In perceptual contexts, the frame-of-reference is defined in terms of the assignment of spatial arrangements; i.e., what is to the left and the right, what is in the foreground and background etc. In conceptual contexts, the frame-of-reference is defined in terms of the assignment of conceptual arrangements; i.e.; which elements are conceptually closer or further apart, which are more essential and which more peripheral. In both cases, frame-of-reference can have profound effects as evidenced by the reversible image research in perception (Chambers & Reisberg 1992) and research on cognitive framing (Tversky & Kahneman 1981) in cognition. A further striking parallel between perceptual and conceptual perspectives is that they both become easily entrenched. When one watches the spinning dancer (figure 6) it is very difficult to recognize that at any time she can be seen as facing in one of two different directions. In a very similar way, when one works on a conceptual problem it is very easy to interpret it in a particular way that creates a “mental set” that can impede its solution. There is even a common cognitive ability (Schooler & Melcher 1995; see also, Wiseman et al. 2011) for overcoming the mental sets associated with solving conceptual problems (e.g., insight problems) and perceptual problems (e.g., recognizing out-of-focus pictures). In short, perceptual reversible images elegantly illustrate a fundamental aspect of not just perception but of human cognition more generally; namely, that we routinely consider things (be they objects or ideas) within the context of a particular frame-of-reference (be that frame perceptual or conceptual), and we can have a very hard time reconsidering those things from a different perspective.
Even if it is appropriate to draw a parallel between the meaning of “perspective” in perceptual and conceptual contexts, it does not necessarily follow that the analogy can be extended to the particular conceptual problem of distinguishing between the first- and third-person perspective approaches. But I maintain that it is in fact particularly applicable in this context. The essence of the distinction between first- and third-person perspectives has to do with one’s frame-of-reference. If one considers consciousness from a first-person perspective, one is understanding it in relationship to one’s own personal experience, taking subjectivity as the foreground and objective reality as the background. One is considering consciousness through one’s own experience, and grounding assumptions on what is real and important on the basis of that personal subjective vantage. In contrast, a third-person perspective takes the objective world as the frame-of-reference. Personal experiences that cannot be independently verified are therefore suspect and inferences must be drawn, as they are in all of science, on the basis of people’s measurable behaviors and physiological responses. In my view, it is no accident that these two approaches to thinking about consciousness have historically been described in terms of differences in perspective as they self-evidently entail thinking about consciousness from distinctly different frames-of-reference.
In short, I maintain that the notion of distinct conflicting perspectives akin to those associated with perceptual reversible images aptly applies to many conceptual distinctions, but especially apply when it comes to characterizing the objective/subjective divide. The corollary of this claim is the possibility that, like the alternative perspectives of reversible images, the objective/subjective divide may be usefully informed by recognizing that both perspectives represent equally meaningful interpretations that cannot be reduced to one another, but may be better understood from a meta-perspective that acknowledges the larger context in which they are both embedded.
In my view, the importance of the distinct perspectives that emerge from alternative frames-of-reference simply cannot be overstated. In addition to its self-evident effects in the context of perception, frames-of-reference are a powerful determinant of the actions that people take in important real-life situations. For example, doctors’ prescriptions of how to treat an epidemic is profoundly influenced by whether the treatment is framed in terms of lives saved or lives lost even when it corresponds to precisely the same scenario (Tversky & Kahneman 1981). In physics, fundamental breakthroughs have repeatedly taken place as a function of changes in scientists’ frame-of-reference. For example, Newton’s laws of gravity emerged when he realized that the same frame-of-reference that applies to forces on the ground equally applies to the motion of the heavens (Westfall 1980). Einstein’s special theory of relativity was fostered by his replacement of the notion of an absolute frame-of-reference with a frame-of-reference defined relative to the observer (2001). Given the significance of perspective and frame-of-reference in other contexts it stands to reason that something so salient as whether one is thinking about consciousness from their own perspective or from the objective perspective of science should profoundly impact the questions that they ask and the answers that they reach.
In the case of reversible images, the best way to understand how they can correspond to two so entirely distinct yet self-consistent representations is to practice alternating between vantages. Although at first it is very difficult to see how the spinning dancer alternatively rotates in two different directions, with practice one comes to appreciate the two vantages that the image affords, and thus to understand why her direction changes. The primary goal of my paper is to explore the hypothesis that a deeper understanding of the subjective/objective divide can emerge in a similar fashion. By thoroughly considering each vantage from the perspective of the other, it is hoped that a meta-perspective will emerge that recognizes the logical consistency of each, while not attempting to reduce either one to the other.
Gottschling suggests that my emphasis on “meta-perspective” is an unnecessary strategic move that ultimately detracts from the primary value of my paper. Part of her difficulty with the meta-perspective emphasis may arise from my inadequately situating the second section of my paper in the context of this construct, and the seeming equation of meta-perspective with non-reductionism in the third section. However, the value of considering alternative perspectives in overcoming the limitations that can emerge when one solely considers a single vantage has merit regardless of whether one ascribes to any of the ontological speculations I suggest in the third section of my paper. Independent of the conclusions that one derives, there seems to be great value in systematically considering subjective experience from the vantage of a third-person perspective, and objective reality from the vantage of a first-person perspective, which are the goals of section 2 and section 3 respectively.