Why the rare Charles Bonnet cases are not evidence of misrepresentation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (SciVal)
4 Downloads (Pure)


Recently, the possibility of misrepresentation has resurfaced in the debate between higher-order thought theorists and their opponents. One new element in the debate has been the rare cases of Charles Bonnet syndrome (RCB cases), proposed as empirical evidence for misrepresentation as posited by the higher-order theories. In this article I will spell out the argument supposedly underlying the claim that the RCB cases are genuine empirical evidence of misrepresentation. I will then proceed to show that this argument relies on a hidden premise. With this premise exposed the argument cannot support the notion of misrepresentation posited by higher-order theories.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)301-308
JournalJournal of Philosophical Research
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Philosophy


  • Higher-order thought
  • HOT
  • Charles Bonnet Syndrome
  • misrepresentation


Dive into the research topics of 'Why the rare Charles Bonnet cases are not evidence of misrepresentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this