Higher‐Order Thought and the Problem of Radical Confabulation
The Southern Journal of Philosophy March 1, 2008 DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00070.x (opens in new tab)
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe higher-order-thought (HOT) theory of consciousness, as developed by Rosenthal, can be interpreted in two ways: a one-component view and a two-component view. The two-component view aligns better with Rosenthal's aim of making HOT an explanatory theory applicable to empirical science, but it fails to account for cases of radical confabulation. The authors argue that neither interpretation adequately handles these counterexamples, and adopting a disjunctive strategy that includes both versions offers no empirical or explanatory benefit.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Argues that the two-component interpretation of Rosenthal's higher-order-thought theory of consciousness cannot handle cases of radical confabulation and that a disjunctive strategy combining both interpretations provides no advantage. |
Abstract
AbstractCurrently, one of the most influential theories of consciousness is Rosenthal's version of higher‐order‐thought (HOT). We argue that the HOT theory allows for two distinct interpretations: a one‐component and a two‐component view. We further argue that the two‐component view is more consistent with his effort to promote HOT as an explanatory theory suitable for application to the empirical sciences. Unfortunately, the two‐component view seems incapable of handling a group of counterexamples that we refer to as cases of radical confabulation. We begin by introducing the HOT theory and by indicating why we believe it is open to distinct interpretations. We then proceed to show that it is incapable of handling cases of radical confabulation. Finally, in the course of considering various possible responses to our position, we show that adoption of a disjunctive strategy, one that would countenance both one‐component and two‐component versions, would fail to provide any empirical or explanatory advantage.