The Goldilocks Problem of the specificity of visual phenomenal content

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44 (3-4):476-495 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Existentialist accounts maintain that visual phenomenal content takes the logical form of an existentially quantified sentence. These accounts do not make phenomenal content specific enough. Singularist accounts posit a singular content in which the seen object is a constituent. These accounts make phenomenal content too specific. My account gets the specificity of visual phenomenal content just right. My account begins with John Searle's suggestion that visual experience represents an object as seen, moves this relation outside the scope of the existential quantifier and then replaces it with the relation of objects being ‘present as accessible’, as described by Alva Noë

Author's Profile

Robert Schroer
University of Minnesota, Duluth

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-10-19

Downloads
661 (#33,811)

6 months
96 (#56,276)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?