Why the Rare Charles Bonnet Cases Are Not Evidence of Misrepresentation

Journal of Philosophical Research 39:301-308 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recently, the possibility of misrepresentation has resurfaced in the debate between higher-order thought theorists and their opponents. One new element in the debate has been the rare cases of Charles Bonnet syndrome , proposed as empirical evidence for misrepresentation as posited by the higher-order theories. In this article I will spell out the argument supposedly underlying the claim that the RCB cases are genuine empirical evidence of misrepresentation. I will then proceed to show that this argument relies on a hidden premise. With this premise exposed the argument cannot support the notion of misrepresentation posited by higher-order theories

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,264

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Synaesthesia and misrepresentation: A reply to Wager.Richard Gray - 2001 - Philosophical Psychology 14 (3):339-46.
Tracing Culpable Ignorance.Rik Peels - 2011 - Logos and Episteme 2 (4):575-582.
Dossier Charles Bonnet.Christiane Fremont - 2003 - Corpus: Revue de philosophie 43:419-456.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-08-06

Downloads
45 (#261,772)

6 months
6 (#132,940)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?