DOCSLIB.ORG

The Content of Consciousness: Do We Need Qualia?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Content of Consciousness: Do We Need Qualia? Kaleidoscope Volume 9 Article 23 November 2011 The onC tent of Consciousness: Do We Need Qualia? Sara Copic Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kaleidoscope Part of the Philosophy of Mind Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Copic, Sara (2010) "The onC tent of Consciousness: Do We Need Qualia?," Kaleidoscope: Vol. 9, Article 23. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kaleidoscope/vol9/iss1/23 This Summer Research and Creativity Grants is brought to you for free and open access by the The Office of Undergraduate Research at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kaleidoscope by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Spotlight On Summer Research and Creativity Grants Sara Copic phenomena) must be accounted for without invoking other The Content of Consciousness: kinds of substances. Thus, while substance dualism (the idea that there are physical and mental substances which have Do We Need Qualia? different and mutually exclusive properties) is out, property Philosophy is the practice of coming dualism is still in the game. Hence, both an intentionalist and a to understand that with which we believe phenomenist could be property dualists, holding the view that we are most intimately familiar – our mental properties (thoughts, beliefs, phenomenal experience) social norms, the golden rule, learning, are fundamentally irreducible to their physical realizers (Heil our consciousness (to name just a few). Of course, there is 177). Since qualia preclude functional, cognitive, or intentional a sense in which we are all familiar with and understand characterization, they must, if they exist, supervene on these consciousness: we experience it in our normal waking life. To mental properties. If qualia are real, supervenience would be borrow from Thomas Nagel, each of us knows “what it is like” true and intentionalism false (Block). to experience the world from a certain point of view. However, Secondly, the philosophical debate over the putative experience of, does not necessarily yield insight into, and it is existence of qualia and their first person accessibility is a parcel perhaps our very familiarity with consciousness that deludes us of a greater debate about a paradigm of the mental called into believing we comprehend it. When we begin to question functionalism. In functionalism, mental states are part of this phenomenon, the very thing that defines who we are, we a causal network. For instance, if you stub your big toe on uncover that we hardly know our own minds. your bed post, you are most likely, under normal conditions, Therefore, it is not surprising that, “The greatest chasm going to experience pain. According to functionalism, this in the philosophy of mind – maybe even all of philosophy pain state was caused by your tissue damage, and in turn – divides two perspectives on consciousness.” The point of causes pain behavior and avoidance behavior (perhaps you contention revolves around the existence of qualia, or intrinsic wince, rub your toe, and watch out for furniture in your qualities of our experience, and our purported awareness of path in the future). Here, pain acts as a causal intermediary them. In other words, the question, “Is there anything in between tissue damage and pain behavior (Kim). The qualia phenomenal consciousness that escapes or goes beyond the debate factors into this because philosophers want to know intentional, cognitive, and functional?” has spurred great if our phenomenal experience, “what it is like” for a subject debate in recent times, and brought about two main theories to experience something, can be characterized functionally. If to answer the question. not, functionalism would prove to be an incomplete picture of These competing views are called intentionalism (or the mind’s workings. Here, we will focus more specifically on representationism) and phenomenism. Intentionalists claim the qualia debate, though issues about functionalism will be that phenomenal conscious experiences, such as seeing embedded within the discussion. red or feeling pain, are nothing more than intentional or Several questions accompany the issues noted above. representational mental contents. (There is a debate about the Are there such properties as qualia? If so, do we have first- nature of this content, that is, whether it is “narrow” or “wide” person access to them, and how can we become aware of content, a point which lies outside our scope.) In contrast, them? Why would qualia accompany or supervene on our phenomenists argue that qualia (which, by definition, escape conscious experiences (in a way, this question poses Chalmers’ intentional, cognitive, and functional characterization) are “hard problem” in different terms)? What are the appeals of real, and that we have first-person access to them. According intentionalism versus phenomenism, or vice versa? How does to phenomenism, we can attend to and be aware of the vehicle each theory account for our phenomenal experience? What is the 2 of representation of our experiences, as well as of phenomenal relationship between phenomenism and epiphenomenalism ? characters that are intrinsic but do not represent anything. Finally, if qualia exist, do they present a serious challenge for This paper will explore the chasm between intentionalism functionalism? Here, the exploration of these issues will be and phenomenism, and ultimately attempt a defense of the guided by the views of Gilbert Harman and Ned Block, who former. represent intentionalism and phenomenism, respectively. First, let us develop a framework for our approach There are three main arguments for qualia that Block to consciousness, which is relatively uncontroversial in and Harman both discuss. The most famous of these is the contemporary philosophy of mind. All of the topics discussed inverted spectrum argument, which we will explore last. Let here will accord with physicalism, the idea that our universe us turn to the argument from awareness of qualia during only contains matter (atoms and their subparticles, bosons, experience. This argument takes the following form: When and the like) and energy (fermions, light, etc.). Under the one experiences redness or pain, one is aware of an intrinsic physicalist doctrine, all phenomena (including mental quality of one’s experience, where “an intrinsic quality is a Kaleidoscope | Volume 9, 2010 | The University of Kentucky Journal of Undergraduate Scholarship Spotlight On Summer Research and Creativity Grants quality something has in itself, apart from its relation to other qualia (what he calls the “intrinsic features of experience”). things,” (Harman 664). An intrinsic quality of a subject’s While Harman’s objection to the pro-qualia argument from experience (or a quale) cannot be characterized functionally, awareness may seem like a minor victory for intentionalism since functionalism defines mental events in terms of their (and by extension, functionalism), Ned Block attempts a relations to each other, to their physical causes, and to behavior. defense of its premise in his article, Mental Paint. Block is one Therefore, functionalism does not offer a complete picture of of the main proponents of phenomenism, and claims not only our (conscious) mental activity (Harman). that qualia, intrinsic properties of our experiences, exist, but How might an intentionalist respond to this argument? that there are some which represent intentional content, and Gilbert Harman responds by calling the premise into some which accompany it but represent nothing at all. He question. In fact, Harman claims that we cannot be aware of calls the former sub-category of qualia “mental paint” and the the intrinsic qualities of our experiences except in special cases latter “mental oil” (Block 34). that do not pose a problem for functionalism; for instance, Block argues that Harman is wrong about awareness, you may be able to become aware of the intrinsic qualities though not about attention5. He argues that we can be aware of your experiences by observing your own brain in a mirror during a surgery (Harman), but this kind of access to the intrinsic qualities of your experience occurs from the third Harman invokes a very clear person perspective, and thus is not the same kind of access example to support his case. He writes that phenomenists are talking about. It is important to note that access to our qualia, if they exist as defined above, is only a that if you have a pain in your leg, challenge for functionalism if it is first person access3. Harman “It is very tempting to confuse features claims that we can only be aware of our intentional mental of what you experience as happening in content, meaning the objects that are represented and not the medium which represents them, although it can be easy to your leg with the intrinsic features of confuse the intrinsic quality of the represented object of our your experience. But the happening in experience with the intrinsic quality of the experience itself your leg that you are presented with is the (Harman). According to Harman, the premise of the argument from awareness falls prey to this confusion. intentional object of your experience; it is Harman invokes a very clear example to support his case. not the experience itself” (668). He writes that if you have a pain in your leg, “It is very tempting to confuse features of what you experience as happening in your leg with the intrinsic features of your experience. But of qualia, even when we are not attending to them. Block the happening in your leg that you are presented with is the writes, “Another way to appreciate the point: stick your finger intentional object of your experience; it is not the experience in front of your face, then focus on something distant. It does itself” (668). not seem so hard (at least to me) to attend to and be aware of Harman invokes a useful analogy to showcase this point aspects of the experience of the finger as well as of the finger” further.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 12 Issue 4 Article 1 10-1-1995 Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia? David Merrihew Lewis Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Lewis, David Merrihew (1995) "Should a Materialist Believe in Qualia?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 12 : Iss. 4 , Article 1. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol12/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. SHOULD A MATERIALIST BELIEVE IN QUALIA? David Lewis Should a materialist believe in qualia? Yes and no. 'Qualia' is a name for the occupants of a certain functional role that is spelled out in our tacitly known folk psychology. If materialism is true, there are no perfect occu­ pants of the role, and hence no perfect deservers of the name. But in all probability there are imperfect occupants of the role, imperfect deservers of the name. Good enough deservers of the name? May they just be called 'qualia'? I say yes. But I take this to be a case of semantic indecision. There is no settled answer to the question 'how good is good enough?'.
    [Show full text]
  • Dennett's Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness
    Dennett’s Theory of the Folk Theory of Consciousness1 Justin Sytsma Abstract: It is not uncommon to find assumptions being made about folk psychology in the discussions of phenomenal consciousness in philosophy of mind. In this article I consider one example, focusing on what Dan Dennett says about the “folk theory of consciousness.” I show that he holds that the folk believe that qualities like colors that we are acquainted with in ordinary perception are phenomenal qualities. Nonetheless, the shape of the folk theory is an empirical matter and in the absence of empirical investigation there is ample room for doubt. Fortunately, experimental evidence on the topic is now being produced by experimental philosophers and psychologists. This article contributes to this growing literature, presenting the results of six new studies on the folk view of colors and pains. I argue that the results indicate against Dennett’s theory of the folk theory of consciousness. The existence of phenomenal consciousness is often taken for granted in the philosophical and scientific literature on the topic. Sometimes, this attitude is supported by claims that phenomenal consciousness is in some way evident in our ordinary experience itself.2 The prevalence of this attitude can also be seen in the way that some skeptics about phenomenal consciousness discuss the supposed phenomenon. For example, the qualia eliminativist Dan Dennett seems to accept that belief in qualia is part of our “folk theory of consciousness” (2005, 31). In contrast, I have argued that phenomenal consciousness is not evident in ordinary experience alone—that it is not phenomenologically obvious—and that this can be drawn out by 1 To appear in the Journal of Consciousness Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Wrong with the No-Report Paradigm and How to Fix It Ned Block New York University Correspondence: [email protected]
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Forthcoming in Trends in Cognitive Sciences What is wrong with the no-report paradigm and how to fix it Ned Block New York University Correspondence: [email protected] Key words: consciousness, perception, rivalry, frontal, global workspace, higher order Abstract Is consciousness based in prefrontal circuits involved in cognitive processes like thought, reasoning, and memory or, alternatively, is it based in sensory areas in the back of the neocortex? The no-report paradigm has been crucial to this debate because it aims to separate the neural basis of the cognitive processes underlying post-perceptual decision and report from the neural basis of conscious perception itself. However, the no-report paradigm is problematic because, even in the absence of report, subjects might engage in post-perceptual cognitive processing. Therefore, to isolate the neural basis of consciousness, a no-cognition paradigm is needed. Here, I describe a no-cognition approach to binocular rivalry and outline how this approach can help resolve debates about the neural basis of consciousness. Acknowledgement: Thanks to Jan Brascamp, Susan Carey, Thomas Carlson, David Carmel, David Chalmers, Christof Koch, Hakwan Lau, Matthias Michel, Michael Pitts, Dawid Potgieter and Giulio Tononi for comments on an earlier version. What is the Neural Basis of Consciousness? In recent years the scientific study of consciousness (see Glossary) has focused on finding the neural basis of consciousness in the brain. There are many theories of the neural basis of consciousness, but in broad strokes theories tend to divide on whether consciousness is rooted in the ‘front’ or the ‘back’ of the brain.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Qualitative Feel As the Introspectible Subjective Aspect of a Space of Reasons
    An Analysis of Qualitative Feel as the Introspectible Subjective Aspect of a Space of Reasons Michael James Stuart Beaton Submitted for examination in the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex, April, 2009 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be submitted, in whole or in part, to this or any other University for the award of any other degree. Signature: ................................................ An Analysis of Qualitative Feel as the Introspectible Subjective Aspect of a Space of Reasons Michael James Stuart Beaton Summary This thesis presents an analysis of qualitative feel (‘qualia’), based on a Sellarsian ‘space of reasons’ account of the mental. The first non-introductory chapter, Chapter 2, argues against an over-strong phenomenal realism (the claim that inverted spectra, zombies, etc., are at least conceptually possible), and against the modern phenomenal concept defence of such claims. Nevertheless, it is agreed with the proponents of these views that we must allow for introspective knowledge of our qualia, if we are to take qualia seriously at all. It is therefore proposed that we allow our search for qualia to be guided by some independently plausible theory of introspection. In Chapter 3, Shoemaker’s account of introspection is presented, extended in certain respects, and defended against some current objections. Chapter 4 is used to argue that Shoemaker’s current account of qualia can only be made compatible with his account of introspection by paying certain very high costs (which Shoemaker is aware of, but seems willing to pay). However, it is also argued that Shoemaker’s account of qualia has some attractive features, which can be preserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness, Philosophical Issues About Ned Block New York University I
    To appear in The Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Consciousness, Philosophical Issues about Ned Block New York University I. The Hard Problem There are a number of different matters that come under the heading of ‘consciousness’. One of them is phenomenality, the feeling of say a sensation of red or a pain, that is what it is like to have such a sensation or other experience. Another is reflection on phenomenality. Imagine two infants, both of which have pain, but only one of which has a thought about that pain. Both would have phenomenal states, but only the latter would have a state of reflexive consciousness. This entry will start with phenomenality, moving later to reflexivity and then to one other kind of consciousness. The Hard Problem of consciousness is how to explain a state of consciousness in terms of its neurological basis. If neural state N is the neural basis of the sensation of red, why is N the basis of that experience rather than some other experience or none at all? Chalmers (1996) distinguishes between the Hard Problem and “easy” problems that concern the function of consciousness. The Hard Problem (though not under that name) was identified by Nagel (1974) and further analyzed in Levine (1983). There are two reasons for thinking that the Hard Problem has no solution. 1. Actual Failure. In fact, no one has been able to think of even a highly speculative answer. 2. Principled Failure. The materials we have available seem ill suited to providing an answer. As Nagel says, an answer to this question would seem to require an objective account that necessarily leaves out the subjectivity of what it is trying to explain.
    [Show full text]
  • Privileged Access and Qualia
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by European Scientific Journal (European Scientific Institute) European Scientific Journal December 2015 edition vol.11, No.35 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 PRIVILEGED ACCESS AND QUALIA Thomas W. Smythe Retired Associate Professor, North Carolina Central University Abstract In this paper I shall examine some recent literature that purports to show that sensations or qualia are not real psychological phenomena, and that we do not have privileged access to our psychological states. In particular, I shall criticize some work by Daniel C. Dennett, who has argued against the existence of qualia and privileged access to the mental. I will maintain that Dennett has not made a convincing case for eliminating qualia, and has not shown that we do not have privileged access to psychological phenomena from a first-person point of view. Keywords: Qualia, Privileged Access, Self-Warranting Knowledge Introduction I will defend the view that certain criticisms of what has been called self-justifying or self-warranting knowledge of our psychological states have not succeeded. I will do this by arguing that attempts by Dennett and others to undermine self-justifying knowledge are unsuccessful. I begin by examining a paper by Dennett where he attempts to eliminate qualia. In a notable paper called ”Quining Qualia,” Dennett explains that he uses the verb ‘to quine’ in honor of W. V. O. Quine. It means to deny resolutely the existence or importance of something seemingly real and significant, for example, the soul. Quining qualia means saying there is no such thing as qualia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mystery of David Chalmers
    Daniel C. Dennett The Mystery of David Chalmers 1. Sounding the Alarm ‘The Singularity’ is a remarkable text, in ways that many readers may not appreciate. It is written in an admirably forthright and clear style, and is beautifully organized, gradually introducing its readers to the issues, sorting them carefully, dealing with them all fairly and with impressive scholarship, and presenting the whole as an exercise of sweet reasonableness, which in fact it is. But it is also a mystery story of sorts, a cunningly devised intellectual trap, a baffling puzzle that yields its solution — if that is what it is (and that is part of the mystery) — only at the very end. It is like a ‘well made play’ in which every word by every character counts, retrospectively, for something. Agatha Christie never concocted a tighter funnel of implications and suggestions. Bravo, Dave. Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013 So what is going on in this essay? It purports to be about the pros- pects of the Singularity, and since I can count on readers of my essay For personal use only -- not for reproduction to have read Chalmers, I needn’t waste so much as a sentence on what that is or might be. See Chalmers (2010). I confess that I was initially repelled by the prospect of writing a commentary on this essay since I have heretofore viewed the Singularity as a dismal topic, involving reflections on a technological fantasy so far removed from actuality as to be an indulgence best resisted. Life is short, and there are many serious problems to think about.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualia NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University, USA
    Qualia NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University, USA Qualia (singular, quale) are cultural emergents that manifest phenomenally as sensuous features or qualities. The anthropological challenge presented by qualia is to theorize elements of experience that are semiotically generated but apperceived as non-signs. Qualia are not reducible to a psychology of individual perceptions of sensory data, to a cultural ontology of “materiality,” or to philosophical intuitions about the subjective properties of consciousness. The analytical solution to the challenge of qualia is to con- sider tone in relation to the familiar linguistic anthropological categories of token and type. This solution has been made methodologically practical by conceptualizing qualia, in Peircean terms, as “facts of firstness” or firstness “under its form of secondness.” Inthephilosophyofmind,theterm“qualia”hasbeenusedtodescribetheineffable, intrinsic, private, and directly or immediately apprehensible experiences of “the way things seem,” which have been taken to constitute the atomic subjective properties of consciousness. This concept was challenged in an influential paper by Daniel Dennett, who argued that qualia “is a philosophers’ term which fosters nothing but confusion, and refers in the end to no properties or features at all” (Dennett 1988, 387). Dennett concluded, correctly, that these diverse elements of feeling, made sensuously present atvariouslevelsofattention,wereactuallyidiosyncraticresponsestoapperceptions of “public, relational” qualities. Qualia were, in effect,
    [Show full text]
  • Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology's
    Augsburg Honors Review Volume 12 Article 4 2019 Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Allison Mangan Augsburg University Follow this and additional works at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation Mangan, Allison (2019) "Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire," Augsburg Honors Review: Vol. 12 , Article 4. Available at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review/vol12/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate at Idun. It has been accepted for inclusion in Augsburg Honors Review by an authorized editor of Idun. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Allison Mangan Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Alio Maga, Augbug Univesty ualia are layered and complex, the basic philosophic understanding a labyrinth of a concept, of qualia today. We will see how Q rife with debate as to their consciousness is necessary for qualia, existence, state, and what they mean and why this makes defning qualia for our understanding of knowledge, a challenge. Next, we will go over the relationship with the world, and explanatory gap of qualia. From there, ourselves. Toughtful exploration into we will see how qualia relate to the mind- the complexities of what qualia are body problem, and the early exploration and how they relate to the mind-body of this problem through Descartes, problem will be wrestled with though Locke, and Berkeley. Additionally, we research applied within this paper. will go over the main schools of thought Qualia can be found in philosophical that surround the mind-body problem: debates surrounding epistemology materialism, idealism, and dualism.
    [Show full text]
  • Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology
    MIDWEST STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY, X (1986) Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology NED BLOCK eaning is notoriously vague. So, it should not be surprising that se- Mmanticists (those who study meaning) have had somewhat different purposes in mind, and thus have sharpened the ordinary concept of meaning in somewhat different ways. It is a curious and unfortunate fact that semanti- cists typically tell us little about what aspects of meaning they are and are not attempting to deal with. One is given little guidance as to what extent “rival” research programs actually disagree. My purpose here is to advocate an approach to semantics relevant to the foundations of psychology, or, rather, one approach to one branch of psychology, namely cognitive science. I shall be tallung in terms of some of the leading ideas of cognitive science, most importantly the representational theory of mind, aspects of which will be sketched as they become relevant.’ The representalist doctrine that my argument depends on is that thoughts are structured entities. I know this will be a sticking point for some readers, so I will say a bit more about what this comes to, and I will compare my position with related positions that reject it. My strategy will be to begin with some desiderata. These desiderata vary along many dimensions: how central they are to meaning, how psycho- logically oriented they are, how controversial they are. I will argue that one approach to semantics (not to keep you in suspense-conceptual role seman- tics) promises to handle such desiderata better than the others that I know about.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a REFUTATION of QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael
    1 To appear in M. O’Rourke and C. Washington (eds.), Situating Semantics: Essays on the Philosophy of John Perry (MIT Press) A REFUTATION OF QUALIA-PHYSICALISM Michael McKinsey Wayne State University Recent defenders of reductive physicalism such as Brian Loar (1990, 1997) and John Perry (2001) have adopted an intriguing new strategy:i (1) accept as so much common sense (nearly) everything that property-dualists want to say about sensory qualia, including the central claims that sensory qualia determine ‘what it’s like’ to have a given sense experience, and that persons are directly aware of these qualia in the having of such experiences; (2) contend that while these common sense facts about qualia may show that our ways of thinking and speaking about qualia are conceptually different from our ways of thinking and speaking about physical properties of the brain, these facts do not show that sensory qualia themselves (as opposed to our ways of thinking and speaking about them) are distinct from physical properties of the brain; (3) use this contention to turn aside the few existing arguments against reductive physicalism by such property dualists as Kripke (1972), Nagel (1974), Jackson (1982), and Chalmers (1996); and finally (4) insist that sensory qualia are in fact just identical with physical properties of the brain, so that consequently, the facts about the sensory qualities of conscious experience are nothing over and above physical facts about the brain. I will call the view that incorporates this strategy ‘qualia-physicalism’, or ‘Q-physicalism’ for short. In this paper I will argue that Q-physicalism is false.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness, Accessibility, and the Mesh Between Psychology and Neuroscience
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2007) 30, 481–548 Printed in the United States of America doi: 10.1017/S0140525X07002786 Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience Ned Block Department of Philosophy, New York University, New York, NY 10003 [email protected] Abstract: How can we disentangle the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness from the neural machinery of the cognitive access that underlies reports of phenomenal consciousness? We see the problem in stark form if we ask how we can tell whether representations inside a Fodorian module are phenomenally conscious. The methodology would seem straightforward: Find the neural natural kinds that are the basis of phenomenal consciousness in clear cases – when subjects are completely confident and we have no reason to doubt their authority – and look to see whether those neural natural kinds exist within Fodorian modules. But a puzzle arises: Do we include the machinery underlying reportability within the neural natural kinds of the clear cases? If the answer is “Yes,” then there can be no phenomenally conscious representations in Fodorian modules. But how can we know if the answer is “Yes”? The suggested methodology requires an answer to the question it was supposed to answer! This target article argues for an abstract solution to the problem and exhibits a source of empirical data that is relevant, data that show that in a certain sense phenomenal consciousness overflows cognitive accessibility. I argue that we can find a neural realizer of this overflow if we assume that the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness does not include the neural basis of cognitive accessibility and that this assumption is justified (other things being equal) by the explanations it allows.
    [Show full text]