Erkenntnis 56 (2):169-180 (2002)
|Abstract||I critically analyse two causal analyses of seeing, by Frank Jackson and Michael Tye. I show that both are unacceptable. I argue that Jackson's analysis fails because it does not rule out cases of non-seeing. Tye's analysis seems to be superior to Jackson's in this respect, but I show that it too lets in cases of non-seeing. I also show that Tye's proposed solution to a problem for his theory -- which involves a robot that mimics another (unseen) robot -- fails. Finally I show that his 'variability' requirement is not necessary, because there are cases where someone can see an object even though the variability that Tye requires does not exist|
|Keywords||Analysis Causal Metaphysics Seeing Jackson, F Tye, M|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. Barrett (1995). Causal Relevance and Nonreductive Physicalism. Erkenntnis 42 (3):339-62.
Michael Tye (1975). The Adverbial Theory: A Defence of Sellars Against Jackson. Metaphilosophy 6 (April):136-143.
David Lynn Holt (1990). Causation, Transitivity, and Causal Relata. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:263-277.
Michael Tye (1982). A Causal Analysis of Seeing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (3):311-325.
Jason Leddington (2012). Look-Blindness. Analysis 72 (2):244-251.
Valtteri Arstila & Kalle Pihlainen (2009). The Causal Theory of Perception Revisited. Erkenntnis 70 (3):397 - 417.
Paul Raymont (1995). Tye's Criticism of the Knowledge Argument. Dialogue 34 (4):713-26.
Michael Tye (1982). A Causal Analysis of Seeing by Michael Tye. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (March):311-325.
Scott Campbell (2006). The Potential Information Analysis of Seeing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):102–123.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #28,875 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?