Affiliation:
1. Department of Philosophy , 7174 Texas State University , 601 University Drive , San Marcos , TX 78666 , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Although many B-theorists do not think that our perceptual experience provides evidence that time passes, they accept that we at least seem to be aware of time’s passage. Consequently, they accept the burden of explaining away the appearance of passage. This paper discuss three arguments aiming to discharge this burden. The first two arguments allow that there is a distinctive phenomenology of passage, whereas the third argues that the belief in passage phenomenology is the result of a cognitive error. None of the arguments succeeds. The first two rest on assumptions that the A-theorist has reasons to reject, in light of facts about the nature of conscious experience – facts concerning both its basis in physical and functional processes, and facts concerning its representation of duration. The third argument fails to provide a compelling account of the source of our belief in passage phenomenology.
Reference32 articles.
1. Bowen, A. J. 2013. “Dissolving an Epistemological Puzzle of Time Perception.” Synthese 190 (17): 3797–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0228-2.
2. Braddon-Mitchell, D. 2013. “Against the Illusion Theory of Temporal Phenomenology.” In Proceedings of the CAPE International Workshops. Part II: The CAPE International Conference “A Frontier of Philosophy of Time”.
3. Chalmers, D. 2002. “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?” In Conceivability and Possibility, edited by T. Gendler, and J. Hawthorne, 145–200. Clarendon Press.
4. Craig, W. 2000. The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination. Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Dainton, B. 2011. “Time, Passage, and Immediate Experience.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time, edited by C. Callender, 382–419. Oxford University Press. Chapter 12.