Published in Philosophical Quarterly July 2009

John Searle and Susanna Siegel have argued that cases of aspect-switching show that visual experience represents a richer range of properties than colours, shapes, positions and sizes. I argue that cases of aspect-switching can be explained without holding that visual experience represents rich properties. I also provide an argument that, even if Searle and Siegel are right, and aspect-switching does require visual experience to represent rich properties, there is reason to think those properties do not include natural kind properties, such as being a tomato.