The Specious Present University of Sydney似是而非的礼物悉尼大学.pptVIP

The Specious Present ‘the short duration of which we are immediately and incessantly sensible’ James My aims: Survey the main options + comment on James’ position Isolate some key assumptions motivating the different positions Defend a neo-Jamesian conception Counter some recent criticisms of Sean Kelly’s Explore a few implications Specious Present: why believe? “change itself is one of the things immediately experienced.” (James,WPE) Some changes = too slow to be perceived (growth of oak tree). Some are too fast (speeding bullet). Some are just right: we directly apprehend them. Enter SP: ‘all the changes in place of a meteor seem … to be contained in the present.’ (Clay) Further data: ‘phenomenal depth’ More generally: (typical) streams of consciousness are continuous A puzzle about length: ‘a core of about a dozen seconds, up to a minute’ (James) (Partially) plausible diagnosis: Making sense of SP: two main models Retentionalist immediate experience of change occurs in a single moment specious present does not really extend through time Extensionalist immediate experience of change is not confined to a single moment specious present is spread through time Extensionalism: 1 SP Extensionalism: streams of SPs Retentionalist Model: 1 SP Retentionalist Model: 3 SPs Retentionalist Model: full glory James: Retentionalist or Extentionalist?? Sean Kelly (recent recommendation): ‘Specious present’ = what James was committed to James = Extensionalist So: distinguish ‘specious present’ theories from Retentionalist approaches James = Extensionalist? James’ Stream doctrine Conjunctive relations: ‘The conjunctive relation that has given most trouble to philosophy is the co-conscious transition, so to call it, by which one experience passes into another when both belong to the same self. … this sense of continuity in that most intimate of all conjunctive relations’ (WPE) But: James = Retentionalist! James’ SP diagram: pure Retentionalism! Diagnosis: In Princip