David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (3):15-33 (2002)
Investigation and analysis of the history of the concepts employed in contemporary philosophy of mind could significantly change the contemporary debate about the explainability of consciousness. Philosophical investigation of the history of the concept of qualia and the concept of scientific explanation most often presupposed in contemporary discussions of consciousness reveals the origin of both concepts in some of the most interesting philosophical debates of the twentieth century. In particular, a historical investigation of the inheritance of concepts of the elements of experience and the nature of scientific explanation from C. I. Lewis and Rudolf Carnap to contemporary theorists like David Chalmers shows the profound continuity of these concepts throughout the analytic tradition, despite important changes in the dimensions of philosophical relevance and significance that have characterized the emerging debate. I argue that, despite the significant methodological shift from the foundationalist epistemology of the 1920s to today's functionalist explanations of the mind, the problem of explaining consciousness has remained the problem of analysing or describing the logical and relational structure of immediate, given experience. Appreciation of this historical continuity of form recommends a more explicit discussion of the philosophical reasons for the underlying distinction between structure and content, reasons that trace to Lewis and Carnap's influential but seldom-discussed understanding of the relationship between subjectivity, conceived as the realm of private, ineffable contents, and objectivity, understood as public, linguistic expressibility. With this historical background in mind, the contemporary debate about the explanation of consciousness can be re-interpreted as a debate about the relationship between ineffable experience and structurally conceived meaning
|Keywords||Consciousness Epistemology Experience History Metaphysics Philosophy Structure|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mark Rowlands (2003). Consciousness: The Transcendalist Manifesto. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (3):205-21.
David Woodruff Smith (1992). Consciousness in Action. Synthese 90 (1):119-43.
Guy Claxton (1996). Structure, Strategy and Self in the Fabrication of Conscious Experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3 (2):98-111.
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evan Thompson & Dan Zahavi (2007). Phenomenology. In P.D. Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch & Evan Thompson (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge.
Evan Thompson & Dan Zahavi (2007). Philosophical Issues: Phenomenology. In Morris Moscovitch, Philip Zelazo & Evan Thompson (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press. 67--87.
Paul M. Livingston (2002). Husserl and Schlick on the Logical Form of Experience. Synthese 132 (3):239-272.
David Woodruff Smith (2000). Ontological Phenomenology. In The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 7: Modern Philosophy. Charlottesville: Philosophy Doc Ctr. 243-251.
Paul M. Livingston (2004). Philosophical History and the Problem of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #44,003 of 1,413,361 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #34,933 of 1,413,361 )
How can I increase my downloads?