An Empirical Investigation of Purported Passage Phenomenology
Journal of Philosophy 117 (7):353-386 (2020)
Abstract
It has widely been assumed, by philosophers, that most people unambiguously have a phenomenology as of time passing, and that this is a datum that philosophical theories must accommodate. Moreover, it has been assumed that the greater the extent to which people have said phenomenology, the more likely they are to endorse a dynamical theory of time. This paper is the first to empirically test these assumptions. Surprisingly, our results do not support either assumption. One experiment instead found the reverse correlation: people were more likely to report having passage phenomenology if they endorsed a non-dynamical theory of time. Given that people do not have an unambiguous phenomenology as of time passing, we conclude that this is suggestive evidence in favor of veridical non-dynamism—the view that our phenomenology is veridical, and that it does not unambiguously represent that time passes. Instead, our phenomenology veridically has some quite different content.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
LATAEI
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-01-26
View other versions
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-01-26
Total views
301 ( #25,488 of 70,017 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
46 ( #18,337 of 70,017 )
2020-01-26
Total views
301 ( #25,488 of 70,017 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
46 ( #18,337 of 70,017 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.