Time in experience: Reply to Gallagher

Psyche 9 (12) (2003)
Abstract
Consciousness exists in time, but time is also to be found within consciousness: we are directly aware of both persistence and change, at least over short intervals. On reflection this can seem baffling. How is it possible for us to be immediately aware of phenomena which are not (strictly speaking) present? What must consciousness be like for this to be possible? In "Stream of Consciousness" I argued that influential accounts of phenomenal temporality along the lines developed by Broad and Husserl were fundamentally flawed, and proposed a quite different account: the overlap model. While recognizing that the latter has merits, Gallagher argues that it too is fundamentally flawed; he also takes issue with some of my claims concerning Broad and Husserl. My reply comes in three main parts. I start by clarifying my use of certain terms, in particular realism and anti-realism as applied to theories of phenomenal temporality in general, and the accounts of Broad and Husserl in particular. I then turn to Gallagher’s main criticisms of the overlap theory. Gallagher argues that the theory is sunk by a problem with ongoing contents, that if our experience possessed the structures I ascribe to it, we would be aware of contents as having longer durations than is actually the case. I suggest otherwise: the version of the overlap theory which is afflicted by this difficulty is not the version I put forward, as becomes clear when two distinct forms of overlap are distinguished. Gallagher is also concerned that the theory lacks phenomenological grounding, and has difficulties with experiential holism. The latter worry, I argue, is completely misplaced. While the former has more warrant, it too is rooted in a misconception: the overlap theory was intended only to provide an account of the most basic sensory components of our short-term experience of temporality, and can easily be expanded to accommodate other aspects. I supply a sketch an augmented theory to back up this claim. I conclude with an assessment of the intentional account of time-consciousness Gallagher ascribes to Husserl. A meaning-based account of this kind is incapable of accounting for experienced sensory continuity, or so I argue. I also suggest that both Broad and Husserl may have had leanings towards the Simple Conception of consciousness.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,205
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Dual‐Aspect Monism.Jiri Benovsky - 2015 - Philosophical Investigations 38 (4):335-352.
The Experience of Time and Change.Barry Dainton - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (4):619-638.
Sensing Change.Barry Dainton - 2008 - Philosophical Issues 18 (1):362-384.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Thinking Time.Jane Chamberlain - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Research 27:281-299.
The Consciousness of Succession.Michael R. Kelly - 2009 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):127-139.
Must an Appearance of Succession Involve a Succession of Appearances?Michael Pelczar - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (1):49-63.
The Inordinance of Time.Shaun Gallagher - 1998 - Northwestern University Press.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

1,054 ( #580 of 2,154,175 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

19 ( #21,889 of 2,154,175 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums