- Benj Hellie (2007). 'There's Something It's Like' and the Structure of Consciousness. Philosophical Review 116 (3):441--63.I discuss the meaning of 'There's something e is like', in the context of a reply to Eric Lormand's 'The explanatory stopgap'. I argue that Lormand is wrong to think it has a specially perceptual meaning. Rather, it has one of at least four candidate meanings: (a) e is some way as regards its subject; (b) e is some way and e's being that way is in the possession of its subject; (c) e is some way in the awareness of (...)
| 2009-12-20 |
Why is this paper so popular?
|
|
Benj Hellie
University of Toronto |
This is by a wide margin my most-downloaded paper on PhilPapers. Why is this? I don't think it's my /best/ paper -- 'Multidisjunctive' and 'Externalist's guide' are more interesting, in my view; and 'Noise' is (IMHO!) the final word on its subject-matter (if sort of hard to read).
Theories:
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/2490
Reply
|
| 2010-01-17 |
Why is this paper so popular?
Reply to Benj Hellie |
|
David Bourget
University of Western Ontario |
Hi Benj, I'd say there are two main factors at play here, though all the factors you mention are certainly relevant.
First, for a long time there was a problem with Online Papers on Consciousness and MindPapers and they were not showing new entries added to relevant cats on PP. OPC is still seeing considerable usage, and this paper was on OPC, but not some of your other more recent papers, including Noise (Noise is still not on OPC because there's no free link for it). More than a third of downloads of your "what it's like" paper come from OPC. I think OPC is reaching a lot of non-philosophers PP is not reaching. Second, I think the fact that this paper's title uses less technical language and widely used keywords like 'consciousness' has helped it compared to the other papers you mention. It probably gets more non-specialist downloads.
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/2778
Reply
|
| 2010-01-17 |
Why is this paper so popular?
Reply to David Bourget |
|
Benj Hellie
University of Toronto |
Interesting. Thanks!
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/2780
Reply
|

