Abstract
The argument from hallucination is often considered to be the most serious objection to a relational or ‘Naïve Realist’ view of perception. The orthodox relationalist response holds that the phenomenal character of hallucinations, i.e. what they are subjectively like, consists solely in their indiscriminability from veridical perception. This response, however, is unsatisfactory in that it (a) explains the phenomenal character of hallucination in purely epistemic terms, and (b) fails to explain why hallucinations are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perceptions, or indeed whether they have genuine phenomenal character at all. In this paper we offer a novel account of hallucinatory experience that avoids both of these difficulties.