Heather Logue: What Can the Naive Realist Say About Total Hallucinations?

Until fairly recently, the consensus view was that naive realists had to be disjunctivists and hold that the facts in virtue of which a total hallucination has phenomenal character are different from the facts in virtue of which a perception has phenomenal character. However, these days a growing number of naive realists reject the possibility of total hallucinations as they are traditionally characterised-- as perceptual experiences that don't involve the subject perceiving any mind-independent objects at all, but are nevertheless subjectively indistinguishable from an ordinary perception. Most views of this sort claim that any experience that is subjectively indistinguishable from perception involves the subject perceiving something mind-independent (e.g., some aspect of the hallucination-generating apparatus stimulating their brain). But another route is to claim that any experience that doesn't involve perceiving mind-independent objects is thereby subjectively distinguishable from an ordinary perception. Contrary to initial appearances, I will argue that this route is viable-- as long as we adopt a highly unorthodox but independently well-motivated metaphysics.
Edited by Emilio Manzotti
github.com/emilim/

[@mfdune]

This is criminally under-popular.