|
1.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Miranda Fricker
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
2.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Tyler Doggett,
Andy Egan
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
3.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Nicholas Shea
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Block's well-known distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness has generated a large philosophical literature about putative conceptual connections between the two. The scientific literature about whether they come apart in any actual cases is rather smaller. Empirical evidence gathered to date has not settled the issue. Some put this down to a fundamental methodological obstacle to the empirical study of the relation between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness. Block (2007) has drawn attention to the methodological puzzle and attempted to answer it. While the evidence Block points to is relevant and important, this paper puts forward a more systematic framework for addressing the puzzle. To give it a label, the approach is to study phenomenal consciousness as a natural kind. The approach allows consciousness studies to move beyond initial means of identifying instances of the kind like verbal report, and to find its underlying nature. It is well-recognised that facts about an underlying kind may allow identification of instances of the kind that do not match the initial means of identification (cp. non-liquid samples of water). This paper shows that the same method can be deployed to investigate phenomenal consciousness independently of access consciousness.
|
|
|
4.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Antti Kauppinen
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
5.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Lionel Shapiro
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
It is generally assumed that Descartes invokes "objective being in the intellect" in order to explain or describe an idea's status as being "of something." I argue that this assumption is mistaken. As emerges in his discussion of "materially false ideas" in the Fourth Replies, Descartes recognizes two senses of 'idea of'. One, a theoretical sense, is itself introduced in terms of objective being. Hence Descartes can't be introducing objective being to explain or describe "ofness" understood in this sense. Descartes also appeals to a pretheoretical sense of 'idea of'. I will argue that the notion of objective being can't serve to explain or describe this "ofness" either. I conclude by proposing an alternative explanation of the role of objective being, according to which Descartes introduces this notion to explain the mind's ability to attain clear and distinct ideas.
|
|
|
6.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Earl Conee
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Michael Strevens
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
8.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Brian Weatherson
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
9.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Ned Hall
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
10.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Marc Lange
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
11.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
Michael Strevens
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:
Volume >
84 >
Issue: 2
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|