Passage and Perception

Noûs 47 (1):69-84 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
The nature of experience has been held to be a major reason for accepting the A-theory of time. I argue, however, that experience does not favour the A-theory over the B-theory; and that even if the A-theory were true it would not be possible to perceive the passage of time. The main argument for this draws on the constraint that a satisfactory theory of perception must explain why phenomenal characters map uniquely onto perceived worldly features. Thus, if passage is perceived, it must be explained what makes one phenomenal character rather than another a perception of passage; and it must also be explained why that phenomenal character is a perception of passage rather than of some other feature of the world. I argue that no such explanation can be given, and consequently that passage cannot be perceived. I conclude that the A-theory is rendered unintelligible, and should therefore be rejected.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-11-04
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
890 ( #7,211 of 72,536 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #18,424 of 72,536 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.