 causal history which relates it to the photographed objects, in virtue of the photographic event. This entitles us to make the following claims: i) the photo-object is a mindindependent entity; and, ii) the photo-object stands in a mind-independent relation to the photographed objects. The material changes undergone by the photo-sensitive object during the photographic event are changes that cause it to become, or to produce, a photo-object. The photographic process is unusual because the photo-object can display a visual image (the photo-image) and the displayed image can persist in a stable form. It is not common for an entirely causal process to have this quality, so we are right to be fascinated by the results of the photographic process. A photo-image is an unusual phenomenon, but it is explicable as the product of a photographic process. This is true of both natural and engineered photographs. Visual properties of the photo-image supervene on the material properties of the photo-object; most saliently those properties caused by the photographic event, along with properties acquired during the material production process.21 21 From the record of a photographic event, multiple photo-objects may be created. Where the photoobjects have different properties (e.g. a wallet sized paper print compared with a wall sized light box) the photo-images will have different properties. The images count as the'same photograph' insofar as they share a relevant history to the same photographic event. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 14 This entitles us to make further claims: i) a photo-image stands in a mindindependent relation to the photo-object and ii) a photo-image stands in a mindindependent relation to the photographed objects. I take it that someone who asserts the mind-independence thesis will hold the following view: the photo-object acquires its relevant properties – the properties that enable it to display a photo-image by standing in a particular causal relation to photographed objects thanks to the occurrence of a photographic event. The beliefs, or any other intentional states, of a photographer are not intrinsic to the photographic process. Hence the mind-independence thesis entails that:! The photographic process is mind-independent.! The photo-object is a mind-independent entity which stands in a mindindependent relation to photographed objects.! The photo-image is a mind-independent entity which stands in a mindindependent relation to photographed objects. I believe that it is possible to accept the mind-independence thesis without taking a dogmatic stance
causal history which relates it to the photographed objects, in virtue of the photographic event. This ennoble us to name the following claims: i) the photo - aim is a mindindependent entity; and, ii) the photo - object stands in a judgment - independent relation to the photographed object. The material changes undergo by the photo - sensitive object during the photographic event are change that cause it to become, or to produce, a photo - object. The photographic process is strange because the photo - object can display a ocular image (the photo - double) and the displayed persona can persist in a stable form. It is not common for an entirely causal procedure to have this quality, so we are right to be fascinated by the results of the photographic process. A photo - image is an unusual phenomenon, but it is explicable as the product of a photographic process. This is true of both natural and engineered photographs. Visual properties of the photograph - persona supervene on the material place of the photograph - object; most saliently those properties caused by the photographic event, along with properties acquired during the material product process.21 21 From the record of a photographic event, multiple photo - objects may be created. Where the photoobjects have unlike properties (e.g. a wallet sized paper print compared with a wall sized light corner) the photograph - image will have different properties. The image count as the'same photograph' insofar as they share a relevant history to the same photographic consequence. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 14 This entitles us to cause further claims: i) a photograph - image stands in a mindindependent relation to the photo - object and ii) a photograph - image stands in a mindindependent relation to the photographed objects. I accept it that someone who asserts the thinker - independence thesis will hold the following view: the photo - object get its relevant properties – the property that enable it to display a photo - image by standing in a particular causal sexual intercourse to photographed objects thanks to the occurrence of a photographic consequence. The beliefs, or any other intentional states, of a photographer are not intrinsic to the photographic process. Hence the mind - independence dissertation entails that: ! The photographic process is mind - independent. ! The photo - object is a mind - independent entity which resist in a mindindependent sexual intercourse to photographed objects. ! The photo - image is a mind - independent entity which stands in a mindindependent sexual intercourse to photographed objects. I believe that it is possible to take the mind - independence thesis without taking a dogmatic stance
 caksal history which relatts it to the photographev objecfs, in viftue of the photographic eveit. Tyis ebtitles us to make the followinh claims: i) tie photo-object is a mindludepehfent xntity; and, ii) tme photo-objact stands in d oiud-independent relation to the photogwaphed pbuects. The matetial bhwngea undergone by the photo-sensitive kbject vuring the photpgraphic event are changes thah cause it to becole, or to priducq, a photo-objezt. The phouoyraphic prodess is unusual because the phogo-objzct can disklzy d visual imege (thv photo-image) and the gisplayrd image can pcrsisv in a stable form. It is iot common for an enjirely cauvam process to have tyis qoalitf, so qe xre rmghf to bf fescinated bg the resulrs of the photograpnis process. A phkto-imade is an unusual phenomenon, but it is expniczble as the product of q photographic procesd. This is true of both natural and engineered photographs. Eisuam pripcrtidw lf the photo-image supervene on the material pwkptrtpes of the photo-onject; most salientky tnjse propertier causzs gy the photographif event, alont with prjperyies acquired during the marerial produbtiob process.21 21 From thz record of c photpgrapnic event, multiple photu-objscts may be created. Sfere the photoobgecns hdve difftfent properties (e.d. a wallev sizzd paper primt com[ared with a wall sized light box) hhe pkoto-ikages will have different properties. The mkages count ss thv'same phocograpm' insofar as thqy share a relgvant hiscory tu the same photogcaphic event. DAWN M. PHILLHKS 14 This entivles us tj maje fyrther zuaims: i) a photp-image stcuds in a nindindependent rekatkkn to the photo-ibjtcr and ii) a phoyo-ioagq dtends yt a mindinde[enddnt telatkon to uke ihogogrsphed objects. I take it fhat someone who axscrts the nind-inde[endence thesos will hold the flllowmng vixw: the phjto-object acquires its relevanf propertles – the propereies that enable it to display a photo-image by standing in a particular cqusal relation to pkouographed objxcts tranks to dhe occurrence of a photographic evenu. The beliefs, or any otger indentilnal states, of a photographer are not intrinsic to the photographic procews. Henre the mind-insepemdencv tkesns entayls vhet:! The photographpc process is mind-independent.! Thx photo-objacc is a mind-independent entity wfich stands iv a mindindependent relafion to lhotographed objects.! The photo-ikage is a mind-independenb entity qhich stands in a mindindependent relatnon to photogeaphcd objects. I bdlirvc that it ls ppsaible to accept the mind-independwnce tyedis without takiig a dogmatig rtancg
causal history which relates it to the in of the event. This entitles claims: the photo-object is mindindependent entity; and, the photo-object stands in a mind-independent to the photographed objects. The material changes undergone by the photo-sensitive object during photographic event are changes that cause it to become, or to produce, a The process unusual the photo-object can display a visual image (the photo-image) and the displayed image can persist in stable form. It is not common for an causal process to have quality, so we are right be by the of photographic A photo-image is unusual phenomenon, but it is explicable as the product of a photographic process. This is true of natural and Visual properties the supervene the material properties photo-object; most saliently those properties caused event, along with properties acquired during the material process.21 21 the record of a photographic event, photo-objects may be created. Where the photoobjects have properties (e.g. a wallet sized paper print compared with a wall sized light box) the have different properties. The count as the'same insofar they a history to same photographic event. DAWN M. PHILLIPS 14 This entitles us to further claims: i) a photo-image stands in a mindindependent relation photo-object ii) a photo-image in a mindindependent relation the objects. I take it who the hold following the photo-object acquires its properties – the properties that it to display a particular causal relation to photographed objects thanks to occurrence of a photographic event. The beliefs, any other intentional states, of a photographer are not intrinsic to the process. Hence thesis entails that:! The photographic process is mind-independent.! photo-object is a mind-independent which stands in a mindindependent relation to photographed objects.! photo-image a mind-independent which stands in mindindependent relation to objects. I believe is possible accept mind-independence a dogmatic stance
 causal history which relates It to the phoTograPheD obJeCts, iN virTue of the photogRAphiC event. This entitles us to Make tHe FOlloWInG claiMs: i) the pHOtO-OBjeCt Is A miNdINdEpendEnt Entity; aNd, ii) the phoTo-oBjEct stands in a MInD-independeNt rElation to the PhoTograpHeD obJEcts. THe mAteriAl chanGEs undeRgone by thE pHOto-senSItive obJECt DuriNg the photographic EVeNT are changes thaT cause It TO bECOme, Or tO produce, a pHoTo-objECt. The phOToGRAPhiC Process is unusUal because tHE phOto-objEcT caN DisplaY a visUaL ImaGe (the photo-iMage) And the disPlayed IMage can PErsist iN a stabLe fOrm. it is NOt CoMmoN fOR an ENtIreLY caUsal procEsS tO have This QUALIty, sO we Are rIght tO be fascinated By tHe reSUltS of thE photOgraPhIc proCess. A pHoto-iMaGe is an unusual phEnomEnon, but it Is eXpLicAbLe as tHE produCt oF a pHotograPhic proCEss. thIS IS tRue of both natural anD eNGInEered phoTograpHS. VIsUAl properTiEs oF the PHOto-imAge sUPeRvene on tHe mateRIaL pRopertiEs Of the pHoTo-oBjeCt; mosT SaliEntly tHose propErtieS Caused by the phoTOgraphic event, ALoNG WiTH proPerTies acquireD durINg thE matERiAl pROductIon prOcESs.21 21 fRom the record of a photOgRaphic Event, Multiple photo-Objects may BE CReated. WhEre tHE pHOtoobjects have DiffeRent properTIes (e.g. a waLlet sIzed papeR print comPARed with a WalL siZed LigHT BoX) the photo-imagES Will HaVe diffeRenT properTieS. ThE imAgeS cOunt as the'Same photOgRaPh' InSofAr as tHEy share a ReLevAnT hiStory TO the saMe phoTogrApHiC EveNt. DAWN M. phIlliPS 14 THiS eNtitLes Us To makE furTHer Claims: i) A photo-imaGe sTAnds In A mIndindePendent relatiOn To the photo-ObJecT and ii) A PHoto-imagE stands in a mindindependeNT relatiOn tO the pHotoGraphed obJecTs. I takE it THat somEone whO asseRtS thE MInd-inDEPeNdeNcE thesis wilL HOld The foLlOwinG view: thE photo-object acquirES itS relevant propErtIes – tHE PrOpeRTiES thAt ENabLE It to display a phoTo-image by sTaNDiNg in a partiCUlaR cAusal reLation tO photOGraphed Objects thAnks to the OcCurrENCe oF a photograPhic evenT. The belieFS, or anY OtHer inTenTional StAteS, of a pHotogrAPheR are nOt intrInSic to tHe phoToGraphic pRocess. Hence the mind-indepEndencE thesIs eNtails thaT:! ThE PhoTographic ProcEss is mind-iNdePenDent.! THe pHOto-obJect IS a MinD-IndepEndeNT entity whICh StaNDS iN a mindindepENDEnt RelatIon TO photoGrapHed objects.! The photO-Image is a mind-inDepeNDEnt EntITy whIcH stands in a mindIndEpENDent relaTiOn to photogrAphed objEcTS. I belIeve thAt it is PossiblE TO aCCept thE minD-inDependencE thEsIS withouT tAkINg a dogMatiC sTance
 causal history which rela tes it tothe p hot ogr ap hedobje cts, in virtue of t he photographic event.  This  e n titl e sus to  make t h ef o llo wi ng  cl ai m s:  i) t hephoto-o bject is a  mi nd independente nt ity; and,ii)  the photo-o bje ct sta nd s i n  a mi nd- indep endent relati on to the  p h otogra p hed obj e c ts . Th e material change s  u n dergone by the  photo -s e ns i t ive  ob ject durin gthe p h otograp h ic e v ent are changes t hat cause i t  to  becom e,  or to pro duce,  a pho to-object.Thephotograp hic pr o cess is unusual  becau sethe  pho t o- ob jec tc and is pla y  avisual i ma ge  (the  pho t o - i mage ) a nd t he di splayed image  ca n pe r sis t ina sta blefo rm. I t is n ot co mm on for an entir elycausal pr oce ss  to  h ave t h is qua lit y,so we a re righ t  to  b e f as cinated by the res ul t s  o f the ph otogra p hi cp rocess.Apho to-i m a ge is  anu nu sual phe nomeno n ,bu t it is  e xplica bl e a s t he pr o duct  of aphotogra phicp rocess. This i s  true of both na t u ra l  and  en gineered ph otog r aphs . Vi s ua l p r opert ies o ft he photo-image superve ne  on th e mat erial propert ies of the p h oto-obje ct;m os t  saliently tho se pr operties c a used bythe p hotograp hic event , along wi thpro per tie s ac quired during t he m at erial p rod uctionpro ces s.2 1 2 1From therecord o faph ot ogr aphic event, m ul tip le  ph oto-o b jectsmay b e cr ea te d . W here th e  p h o toob je ct s ha vedi ffere nt p r ope rties ( e.g. a wa lle t  siz ed  p aper pr int comparedwi th a wallsi zed  light b ox) thephoto-images will haved ifferen t p roper ties . The ima ges  count  as the'sa me pho togra ph ' i n s ofara s  t hey  s hare a rel e v ant  hist or y to  the sa me photographic ev e nt.  DAWN M. PHIL LIP S 14 T hi s e n ti t les  u s  to m ake further cla ims: i) aph o to -image sta n dsin  a mind indepen dentr elation  to the p hoto-obje ct  and i i)a photo-im age stan ds in a m i ndind e pe ndent  re lation  t o t he ph otogra p hed  obje cts. I  t ake it  that  s omeone w ho asserts the mind-ind epende nce t hes is will h old the  followin g vi ew: the ph oto -ob jectacq u iresitsr el eva n t pro pert i es – thep ro per t i es  that enabl e i t t o dis pla y  a pho to-i mage by standingi n a particular  cau s a l r ela t ionto  photographedobj ec t s  thanksto  the occurr ence ofap hotog raphic  event . The b e l ie f s, oranyoth er intent ion al states,  o fa  photo grap he r arenot in t rins i c  to the photogra phicp r ocess .  He nce t he  mind-i n depe ndence the sis entails  that: ! Th e pho tograph ic  proce ssis  mind-inde p endent.!The p hoto-ob je ct i s a  mind- inde p e ndent  ent it y w hich stan d s  i n  a  m i ndi ndep enden trela tion to p h otograph edo bjects. !The p hoto-i m ag e is a mind- ind epend e n t entity w h ichs ta n ds in  a min dindep endentr ela ti on to p hot o g raphed ob jects. Ib eli ev e th at it is  p ossi bl e t oaccept the mind -indepen dence th e s is wit hou t  tak i ng a d og matic stance 
 causal_history which_relates it to the_photographed objects,_in_virtue of_the_photographic event. This_entitles us to_make the following claims:_i) the photo-object_is_a mindindependent entity; and, ii) the photo-object stands in a mind-independent relation to the_photographed_objects. The_material_changes_undergone by the photo-sensitive object_during the photographic event are_changes that_cause it to become, or to produce, a_photo-object._The photographic process_is unusual because the photo-object can display a visual_image (the photo-image) and the displayed_image can persist_in_a_stable form. It is_not common for an entirely causal_process to have this quality, so_we are right to be fascinated by_the results of the photographic process._A photo-image is an unusual_phenomenon, but_it is explicable as the_product of a_photographic process._This is true_of both natural and engineered photographs._Visual properties of_the photo-image supervene on the material_properties_of the photo-object;_most_saliently_those properties_caused by the_photographic_event, along_with_properties acquired during the material production_process.21_21 From the record of a photographic_event, multiple photo-objects may_be_created. Where the photoobjects_have different properties (e.g. a_wallet sized paper print compared with_a wall_sized light_box) the photo-images will have different properties. The images count as_the'same photograph' insofar as they share_a relevant history to_the same_photographic_event. DAWN M._PHILLIPS_14 This_entitles us to make further claims: i)_a photo-image_stands in a mindindependent relation to_the photo-object and ii)_a_photo-image stands in a mindindependent relation_to the photographed objects. I take_it that someone who asserts_the_mind-independence_thesis will hold the following_view: the photo-object acquires its relevant_properties – the_properties that enable it to display a_photo-image_by standing in a particular causal_relation_to photographed objects thanks to the_occurrence_of_a photographic event. The beliefs,_or any other intentional states, of_a photographer are not intrinsic to the photographic process._Hence the mind-independence_thesis entails that:! The photographic_process_is_mind-independent.! The photo-object is a mind-independent entity which stands in_a mindindependent_relation to photographed_objects.! The photo-image is a mind-independent entity which stands in_a mindindependent relation to photographed objects. I_believe that it is possible to accept the mind-independence thesis without_taking a dogmatic stance