Skip to content

Consciousness operationalized, a debate realigned.

Peter Carruthers, Bénédicte Veillet

Consciousness and Cognition October 1, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2017.07.008 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Topics Philosophy of mind
Keywords Access consciousness Amodal experience Cognitive phenomenology Phenomenal consciousness Zombie
Citations 43
Key points Argues that the debate over cognitive phenomenology should be realigned as a distinction between non-conceptual and alleged conceptual or propositional phenomenology, and defends three varieties of non-sensory non-conceptual phenomenology.

Abstract

This paper revisits the debate about cognitive phenomenology. It elaborates, defends, and improves on our earlier proposal for resolving that debate, according to which the test for irreducible phenomenology is the presence of explanatory gaps. After showing how proposals like ours have been misunderstood or misused by others, we deploy our operationalization to argue that the correct way to align the debate over cognitive phenomenology is not between sensory and (alleged) cognitive phenomenology, but rather between non-conceptual and (alleged) conceptual or propositional phenomenology. In doing so we defend three varieties of non-sensory (amodal)1 non-conceptual phenomenology: valence, a sense of approximate number, and a sense of elapsed time.

Comparable studies

Other theoretical and historical papers on philosophy of mind, most cited first.

Citations in the library

Explore topics