Online research in philosophy

Relying on a range of now-familiar thought-experiments, it has seemed to many philosophers that phenomenal consciousness is beyond the scope of reductive explanation. (Phenomenal consciousness is a form of state-consciousness, which contrasts with creature-consciousness, or perceptual-consciousness. The different forms of state-consciousness include various kinds of access-consciousness, both first-order and higher-order--see Rosenthal, 1986; Block, 1995; Lycan, 1996; Carruthers, 2000. Phenomenal consciousness is the property that mental states have when it is like something to possess them, or when they have subjectively-accessible feels; or as some would say, when they have qualia (see fn.1 below).) Others have thought that we can undermine the credibility of those thought-experiments by allowing that we possess purely recognitional concepts for the properties of our conscious mental states. This paper is concerned to explain, and then to meet, the challenge of showing how purely recognitional concepts are possible if there are no such things as qualia--in the strong sense of intrinsic (non-relational, non-intentional) properties of experience. It argues that an appeal to higher-order experiences is necessary to meet this challenge, and then deploys a novel form of higher-order thought theory to explain how such experiences are generated.

In this commentary I criticize David Rosenthal’s higher order thought theory of consciousness (HOT). This is one of the best articulated philosophical accounts of consciousness available. The theory is, roughly, that a mental state is conscious in virtue of there being another mental state, namely, a thought to the effect that one is in the first state. I argue that this account is open to the objection that it makes “HOT-zombies” possible, i.e., creatures that token higher order mental states, but not the states that the higher order states are about. I discuss why none of the ways to accommodate this problem within HOT leads to viable positions.

I want to present a puzzle for the higher-order thought theory as presented by David Rosenthal in his Consciousness and Mind (Rosenthal 2005; all quotes will be to this book). I do not want to consider whether Rosenthal’s view is correct or not or the advantages that it may have over other versions of higher-order theories. Rather what I want to do is grant all of the assumptions of Rosenthal’s version of the theory and then argue that it commits us to a rather startling result. In short form; if we have really explained phenomenal consciousness, or phenomenology –by which I mean the distinctive property of there being something that it is like for the creature that has the conscious experience—, then it should turn out that conscious thoughts have a phenomenology as well. Put slightly differently the puzzle is this. Once one comes to understand and accept Rosenthal’s account of how and why phenomenal consciousness is non-mysterious it then becomes strange that thoughts do not get the same treatment.

Rolls defends a higher-order thought theory of phenomenal consciousness, mapping the distinction between conscious and non-conscious states onto a distinction between two types of action and corresponding neural pathways. Only one type of action involves higher-order thought and consequently consciousness. This account of consciousness has implausible consequences for the nature of stimulus-reinforcement learning.

This interdisciplinary work contains the most sustained attempt at developing and defending one of the few genuine theories of consciousness.

This paper bridges art history and consciousness studies and investigates the network of gazes and frames in Las Meninas and how this engages with a system of higher-order thoughts and reflexive operations.