ABSTRACT
Representationalists have been fond of talking about 'transparency' of our experiences. It appears that some representationalists believe that the transparency of experience supports their view that the nature of an experience is exhausted by its being a representation of some properties of an object. An experience may have a neural constitution, but in general it does not represent neural constitution of any kind. Its experiential character is nothing other than its representing of the property of some external object. The three-dimensionality of the world is, of course, available as a cause of the three-dimensionality of our experience of the world. The recognition of experiences as instantiating properties leads to the question of what the difference is between thinking of, or attending to, our experiences as experiences, and having experiences in the normal course of perception. Since the difference between ordinary experience and regarding an experience as an experience comes by an addition to the former, it leaves the experience itself unchanged.
