Skip to content

Underwhelming force: Evaluating the neuropsychological evidence for higher‐order theories of consciousness

Benjamin Kozuch

Mind & Language November 1, 2022 DOI: 10.1111/mila.12363 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key points Argues that brain lesion evidence appealed to by higher-order theory proponents fails to support the thesis that mental states are conscious when and only when represented by other mental states, because the kinds of conscious deficit predicted from damage to higher-order state-producing areas do not occur in the cited studies. Proposes an apparatus for evaluating whether other lesion evidence confirms or disconfirms higher-order theory.

Abstract

Proponents of the higher‐order (HO) theory of consciousness (e.g., Lau and Rosenthal) have recently appealed to brain lesion evidence to support their thesis that mental states are conscious when and only when represented by other mental states. This article argues that this evidence fails to support HO theory, doing this by first determining what kinds of conscious deficit should result when HO state‐producing areas are damaged, then arguing that these kinds of deficit do not occur in the studies to which HO theorists appeal. The article also develops an apparatus that can be used to evaluate whether other lesion evidence confirms or disconfirms HO theory.

Citations in the library

Explore topics