In Defense Of Disjunctivism Analysis

Improved Essays
Peter Morath
12/22/2017
Philosophy of Mind 330
Prof. Jon Stoltz

In Defense of Disjunctivist Theories of Mind
Confronting Naïve Realism

Most philosophers agree that some forms of hallucination might not be subjectively distinguishable from proper perception. This agreement, however, does not bring unity to ideas of perception. The intentionalist claims that because these two experiences cannot be subjectively distinguished, then they must be experiences of the same kind. The disjunctivist, however, claims that even though perceptions and hallucinations, in extreme cases, are not subjectively distinguishable, they must nonetheless be fundamentally different experiences. Disjunctivism’s attack on intentionalist representationalism is touted
…show more content…
The event is either hallucination or genuine perception—they cannot be the same in kind. This view is attractive because it follows closely to a naïve, or direct, theory of perception. This direct approach to perception is how we usually talk about perception. When we say “Look at this” we don’t mean “Look at my mental representation.” Disjunctivism tries to reconcile this simplicity within a unified philosophy of …show more content…
The article “Illusions of Sense” provides a perspective on a realist theory that focuses on the distinction between real perception and belief. His main point in the article is that a realist idea of perception is justifiable because, he claims, hallucination can be explained in terms of two separate, but linked, false beliefs. He is not, however, saying that hallucination is simply a false belief: “False belief is altogether too mild a description.” He instead focuses on a dual belief system that hallucination in order to explain the “thingness” of hallucination. This is primarily 1) that I think there is something and 2) that I am now seeing that something. These two beliefs, when false in the case of hallucination, are enough, according to Armstrong, to account for the minds distinction from direct perception. For if it is possible to bring about a degree of false belief at will, why should it not be possible for the unconscious mind to bring about these hallucinations like in the case of certain unwanted thoughts? These beliefs are different in kind to perception and only deceive us through false belief – not direct

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    The basis for Cartesian skepticism is that our perceptions are sometimes unreliable, for example, when we are dreaming or hallucinating. As a result, we cannot know if the external world actually exists or if we are in a dream. McDowell grants that perceptions can be unreliable but says that we can ignore this issue if we adopt his idea that experience is openness to reality (McDowell 112). I do agree with McDowell that his idea is not unintelligible even if we grant that our senses can be deceiving, however; I do not think this gives him authority to ignore the questions that arise from Cartesian skepticism because his theory can still be challenged by a Cartesian skeptic. For example, someone can say, “I see a desk in front of me,” but someone else can just ask “How do you know you are not dreaming,” to which…

    • 1949 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The idea of developing perceptions proves to only lead to untruthful projections of reality. The human ability to envisage such thoughts are the source behind this unreliability, since once stimuli is received humans begin to perceive. What is seen and heard may not always…

    • 724 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Truth Is Good Analysis

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Lynch begins by defining lying, “To lie, rather, is to assert something you believe to be false with the intention of misleading or deceiving”(Lynch 148). Lynch then defines deceiving as the aim to pass oneself as believing what one does not believe and to keep this intention from the listener. Lynch uses this definition to refute the automatic judgement that deceiving someone is absolutely wrong. After defining lying, Lynch puts it in a category called prima facie bad. In this Lynch states that lying is bad and truth is preferred over falsity, but there are instances where those roles can become reversed.…

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    SR for some, is a way to explain such discrepancies. For if an experience fails to correspond with the truth, it is merely misrepresenting the object in question. Weak representationalism (who grant both intentional and qualitative contents to mental states) however, can also account for veracity, which makes the argument ineffectual in proving SR. Arguments for SR: Materialism A materialist will be more inclined to accept SR, since it provides a simple solution to the problem of having to explain immaterial objects, such as the qualitative aspect of qualia. SR maintains however, that mental states are purely intentional and not qualitative, which reinforces its compatibilism with materialism.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ryle is suggesting you accept his explanation of why dualism commits a category mistake on the grounds of non dualistic ontology! Although he does argue that the original language explaining dualism is wrong. The way Ryle is critiquing dualism is problematic because for one to build a case against dualism based on beliefs external to dualism is inaccurate. Ryle continues to flip flop between internal and external terminology. Ryle objects to using the term “inside” to describe mental happenings because to do so would require the process to be observable in some sense.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosopher Rene Descartes wrote an influential piece named the “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In this work, his “First Meditation” mainly deals with doubt of existence and how doubt is made possible because of sensory deception. He creates the dream argument that argues about how it is possible to be uncertain about whether or not a person is in a real world or dream world. In philosopher G.E. Moore’s “Certainty” he attempts to debunk Descartes’ argument through showing the inconsistencies in his dream argument. Since Descartes’ argument is built on inconsistency, Moore’s replies are satisfactory.…

    • 1346 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Descartes Dream Argument

    • 4001 Words
    • 17 Pages

    If we can be deceived from a thought, isn’t deciding if we exist or not, a thought as well. Therefore, this thought of realizing you exist due to your intelligence is false because the very recognition of that thought creates doubt that it was deceived. The cogito example points to the mental act of thinking one 's own existence. The cogito creates a flash of self-perception and not a rational step from a point A to point B. The very fact of thinking gives me special access to my being, knowing that it is too evident to…

    • 4001 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Ways Of Thinking Analysis

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This is because our senses can be tricked to see or hear (etc.) different things that are not necessarily true. Illusions, specifically optical illusions, are a great illustration of how the brain’s expectations can influence our sense experiences. The specific pattering in optical illusions can alter the things one sees that are often untrue. Furthermore, complete faith in perception in examples like the Placebo Effect deem it unreliable, as it is subject to change based on other aspects.…

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This however contradicts himself and leads him to beg the question. The problem with the debate of Moore vs the philosophical skeptic is they both believe in different worlds. Moore believes in what could be called the "realistic world" whereas the philosophical skeptic believes in the "doubtful world". Intuitively, it goes against all of our senses to believe that such an external and "realistic" world does not exist. Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They show that justification, truth, and belief conditions are insufficient for knowledge, and that JTB is an incorrect analysis. This leads to the question: how is knowledge defined? The challenge of the Gettier problem is to modify or replace JTB according so that there is a ‘Gettier-proof’ definition of knowledge. I will now argue for the view that Alvin Goldman’s causal theory best solves the Gettier problem. Goldman’s causal theory proposes that the failing within Gettier cases is one of causality, in which the justified true belief is caused too oddly or abnormally to be knowledge.…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays