David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 37 (3):311-29 (1994)
This paper examines the impact that recent advances in clinical neurology, introspectionist psychology and neuroscience have upon the philosophical psycho?neural Identity Theory. Topics covered include (i) the nature and properties of phenomenal consciousness based on a study of the ?basic? visual field, i.e. that obtained in the complete dark, the Ganzfeld, and during recovery from occipital lobe injuries; (ii) the nature of the ?body?image? of neurology and its relation to the physical body; (iii) Descartes? error in choosing extension in space as the criterion for distinguishing the physical and the mental; (iv) the technical distinction between sensing and perceiving; (v) why phenomenal Direct Realism is incorrect whereas epistemic DR and the representative theory are correct; (vi) the ontological and topological status of phenomenal space and physical space. This leads to considerations of the current ?binding problems? in neuroscience; the role of the brain mechanisms that construct the sensory fields of phenomenal consciousness; the ?homunculus? fallacy; the key difference between epistemic and non?epistemic perception as revealed by brain injury studies; and how the brain codes information, contrasting topological and vectorial coding, with particular reference to the binding problem. My conclusion is that the Identity Theory is incompatible with the scientific evidence from an integrated approach to modern introspectionist psychology, clinical neurology, and neuroscience. However, Cartesian Dualism is even more incompatible with the evidence. This leaves only two viable theories. The first is Bohr's theory of brain?consciousness complementarity. The second is the Broad?Price?Smythies theory of extension, which is a topological theory of the relation between phenomenal space and physical space
|Keywords||Consciousness Identity Metaphysics Neuroscience Phenomenology Space|
|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
Jan Plate (2007). An Analysis of the Binding Problem. Philosophical Psychology 20 (6):773 – 792.
Similar books and articles
Brandon N. Towl (2011). Mind-Brain Correlations, Identity, and Neuroscience. Philosophical Psychology 25 (2):187 - 202.
Michael Lockwood (1989). Mind, Brain, and the Quantum. Oxford University Press.
Clive Vernon Borst (1970). The Mind-Brain Identity Theory: A Collection of Papers. New York,St Martin's P..
J.-B. Blumenfeld (1985). Phenomenal Properties and the Identity Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (December):485-93.
Andrew A. Brennan (1988). Conditions of Identity: A Study of Identity and Survival. Oxford University Press.
Gordon G. Globus (1972). Biological Foundations of the Psychoneural Identity Hypothesis. Philosophy of Science 39 (3):291-301.
Simone Gozzano & Christopher S. Hill (eds.) (2012). New Perspectives on Type Identity: The Mental and the Physical. Cambridge University Press.
Pete Mandik (2008). An Epistemological Theory of Consciousness? In Alessio Plebe & Vivian De La Cruz (eds.), Philosophy in the Neuroscience Era. Squilibri.
J. Smythies (1999). Consciousness: Some Basic Issues- a Neurophilosophical Perspective. Consciousness and Cognition 8 (2):164-172.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #103,196 of 1,101,919 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #68,246 of 1,101,919 )
How can I increase my downloads?