Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hjwss Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T10:27:21.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On believing that time does not flow, but thinking that it seems to

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Kristie Miller
Affiliation:
The Centre for Time and Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW2006, Australiakristie_miller@yahoo.comandrew.latham@sydney.edu.auhttps://sydney.edu.au/arts/philosophy/staff/profiles/kristie.miller.php https://philpeople.org/profiles/andrew-james-latham
Alex O. Holcombe
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW2006, Australia. alex.holcombe@sydney.edu.auhttp://sydney.edu.au/science/people/alex.holcombe.php
Andrew J. Latham
Affiliation:
The Centre for Time and Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW2006, Australiakristie_miller@yahoo.comandrew.latham@sydney.edu.auhttps://sydney.edu.au/arts/philosophy/staff/profiles/kristie.miller.php https://philpeople.org/profiles/andrew-james-latham

Abstract

Hoerl & McCormack (H&M) posit two systems – the temporal updating system and the temporal reasoning system – and suggest that they explain an inherent contradiction in people's naïve theory of time. We suggest there is no contradiction. Something does, however, require explanation: the tension between certain sophisticated beliefs about time, and certain phenomenological states or beliefs about those phenomenological states. The temporal updating mechanism posited by H&M may contribute to this tension.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable