 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What? edit
"According to this theory, the only thing common to veridical perceptions and hallucinations is that in a hallucination, the subject of the hallucination cannot tell, via introspection, that he is not having a veridical perception." So the only thing they have in common is actually a difference. That's a stupid sentence. 86.131.89.40 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does seem rather a mess. I am not familiar with McDowell, but I think other material would be innacurate as far as Hinton is concerned. Rather than rejecting sense data "in certain cases", I think JMH rejected them outright. I recall his encouraging me to read Sense and Sensibilia and my memory is that he supported Austin's outright condemnation of sense data. I may look at the papers I have by Michael to confirm my memories and then correct things.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- From what I can gather, disjunctivism entails the belief that, unlike a hallucination, a "veridical perception" is somehow the direct perception of an external "third party" — whereas other schools of philosophy would suggest that, from the experiencer's viewpoint, they might as well be identical. However, I'm a computer scientist and might be getting this horribly wrong. Good luck! 86.131.89.40 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- "The subject cannot tell, via introspection, that he is not having a veridical perception." is true of both the hallucination and the veridical perception. So they have it in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.225.222 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)