брасье пишет:
Indeed, as Metzinger persuasively argues, there are solid grounds for maintaining that the phenomenological subject of appearance is itself a phenomenal appearance generated by in-apparent neurobiological processes.
Of course, having
conceded that the notion of a non-manifest appearance is not entirely oxymoronic, the question remains whether to raise the stakes by insisting that this latent or non-manifest dimension of phenomenality transcends objective description altogether, as did the early Heidegger, who chose to see in it the unobjectifiable being of the phenomenon, which science is constitutively incapable of grasping; or whether to grant that this non-manifest dimension is perfectly amenable to description from the third-person point of view characteristic of the sciences, and hence something which falls under the remit of the scientific study of the phenomenon of consciousness.
Of course, having
conceded that the notion of a non-manifest appearance is not entirely oxymoronic, the question remains whether to raise the stakes by insisting that this latent or non-manifest dimension of phenomenality transcends objective description altogether, as did the early Heidegger, who chose to see in it the unobjectifiable being of the phenomenon, which science is constitutively incapable of grasping; or whether to grant that this non-manifest dimension is perfectly amenable to description from the third-person point of view characteristic of the sciences, and hence something which falls under the remit of the scientific study of the phenomenon of consciousness.