The nature of consciouness or human awareness is one of the problems of perennial concern to philosphers and psychologists alike. Here is a systematic critical and comparative study the nature of human awareness according to the most influential school of classical Indian thought. After introducing the Advaita Philosophical system and indicating the place of consciouness in this system the author presents a detailed discussion of the Advaitin`s unique non-dual understanding of man`s basic intelligence. He continues with and analysis (...) of the Advaitin`s hierarchical vision of waking dream and dreamless sleep experience and compares this analysi,. (shrink)

Contemporary neuroscientific theories of consciousness are typically based on the study of vision and have neglected olfaction. Several of these (e.g. Global Workspace Theories, the Information Integration theory, and the various theories offered by Crick and Koch) claim that a thalamic relay is necessary for consciousness. Studies on olfaction and the olfactory system's anatomical structure show this claim to be incorrect, thus showing these theories to be either false or inadequate as general and comprehensive accounts of consciousness. Attempts to rescue (...) these theories by claiming that there is a structure in the olfactory system that is functionally equivalent to the thalamus in the visual system, such as the olfactory bulb or the olfactory cortex, are also shown to fail. If we wish to understand consciousness, we have to wake up and smell it. (shrink)

Willem Drees endorses not only minimal naturalism, understood as the rejection of supernatural interruptions of the world's normal causal processes, but also maximal naturalism, with its reductionistic materialism. Besides arguing that this reductionistic naturalism provides the best framework for interpreting science, he believes that it is compatible with religion (albeit of a minimalist sort). The “richer” naturalism advocated by Whiteheadians is, accordingly, unnecessary. Drees's position, however, cannot do justice to a number of “hard‐core commonsense notions,” which we inevitably presuppose in (...) practice and thereby in science as well as religion. His naturalism is too poor, in particular, to account for subjectivity, freedom, and mathematical, religious, and moral experience. (shrink)

This paper intends to give a philosophical analysis of the concepts of consciousness and rationality, and particularly to display the correlation existing between what is usually called the “normal state of consciousness” and what should be called the “normal state of rationality”. Eventually, it draws consequences for the correlation existing between “altered/aberrant states of consciousness” and “altered/aberrant rationality”. Although it argues from a broad phenomenological perspective, its grounding technicalities belong to the field of process thought, as fleshed out by the (...) later Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). (shrink)

I start with a review of 20 years of proposals on the functions of consciousness. I then present a minimal number of functions that consciouness subserves, as well as as some remaining puzzles about its psychology. In the process I stress a psychologist's functional approach, asking what consciousness is for. The result is an attempt to place conscious processes within the usual flow of human information processing.

In the epicenter of his attempt to justify the “objective validity” of morality and freedom in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant introduces a so-called fact of reason, which is rendered as the fact that human beings are consciou s of the moral ought’s categorical authority. However, few parts of Kant’s thinking have bemused commentators as much as this. In this article, the author explores a set of intersecting problems related to the fact of reason: (1) the problem of its (...) general argumentative role in Kant’s practical philosophy, (2) the problem of the fact as a brute fact. He argues that both problems can be understood and resolved only if we regard Kant’s introduction of the fact of reason as an implicit attempt to articulate intrinsic problems with reductive explanations of morality. His main claim, which has been surprisingly absent in most interpretations of Kant’s fact of reason, will be that the fact of reason functions as an undeniable yet improvable fact (similar to mathematical principles) from which other practical truths (such as the objective reality of freedom) can be derived. As Kant says unambiguously in the Jäsche-Logic : the “reality” of the moral law “is an axiom.”. (shrink)

Resumo O presente artigo visa apresentar as peculiaridades da interpretação de Giorgio Colli para o pensamento do eterno retorno, numa interpretação que não lhe imputa traço ético nem estético, e sim metafísico. Para tanto, trata-se de, em primeiro lugar, apresentar Parmênides como precursor do eterno retorno, invocando-se a circularidade do ser e da consciência; num segundo momento, trata-se de tomar o eterno retorno como um contato pré-racional, próprio do tempo que expressa a esfera da imediaticidade; num terceiro momento, evidencia-se a (...) força do eterno retorno em sua carga contraditória e seu caráter agonístico. Ao final tem-se o eterno retorno, para Colli, como uma terceira verdade, com a qual Nietzsche pretendeu contrabalançar a verdade do vir-a-ser a suscitar a dor metafísica.The present article aims to present the peculiarities of Giorgio Colli´s interpretation of the eternal recurrence thought - an interpretation that do not ascribe to it nor an ethical nor an aesthetical feature, but a metaphysical one. For this purpose, first of all it presents Parmenides as a forerunner of the eternal recurrence, invoking circularity of Being and consciouness; secondly, it takes the eternal recurrence as a pre-rational contact, a contact from the order of time expressing the sphere of immediacity; thirdly and lastly, eternal recurrence´s power is emphasized in his contradictory burden and agonistic character. After all, the the eternal recurrence would be, for Colli, a third truth, with which Nietzsche intended to counterbalance the truth of becoming that arouses a metaphysical sorrow. (shrink)

As it has been pointed out in the literature, a Theory of Consciousness should satisfy two desiderata: i) account for the particular qualitative character of any particular conscious state, and ii) account for the fact that a conscious state is conscious ‘for the subject’.. Many have claimed that the RepresentationaI Theory of Consciousness can satisfy the first desideratum. It obviously fails, however, to meet the second desideratum. Higher-Order Approaches to Consciouness satisfy the second desideratum straightforwardly, but it remains unclear (...) whether they satisfy the first desideratum. In the first section, I underscore some problems indicating that RTC fails to satisfy the first desideratum. These problems suggest that qualitative character should be understood not as a non-mental represented feature of the world, as RTC suggests, but as a represented feature of the very conscious state itself. This suggests that HOAC are, after all, in a better position than RTC to satisfy the first desideratum, and hence both desiderata. I argue, however, that insofar as HOAC are supposed to satisfy the first desideratum, they are faced with an intolerable vicious regress. I propose that an alternative approach, the Self-Representational Theory of Consciousness is in a better position than HOAC to satisfy both desiderata. (shrink)

The discussions were obscured by an initial misunderstanding. I made it clear from the outset that I was making here only the claim that " the principles of CM do not *entail* the existence of consciousness", not that "consciouness was *incompatible* with the principles of CM. This weak claim, namely that "CM does not entail C", I thought to be obviously true, and I had taken taken it as a secure starting point of the arguments in my paper "The (...) Evolution of Consciousness" [To appear in the proceedings of Tucson II, and available from my web site]. It was Sarfatti's mention of this point that launched this debate. Pat challenged my claim, which I repeatedly described as point of contention. Then at a relatively late stage (Sept25) Pat said that: "There seems to be basic flaw in Henry's logic throughout this discussion". He pointed out the difference between saying that "CM does not entail C" and saying that "CM is inconsistent with C", and said that he would happily concur with the first claim: At this point he said it was trivially true. So, at least in some first approximation, we had then come into agreement on the issue under discussion: we both agreed that the principles of CM did not *entail* the existence of consciousness. (shrink)

Important conceptual and metaphysical issues arise when we try to understand the mental lives of “split-brain” subjects. How many distinct streams of consciousness do they have? According to Elizabeth Schechter’s partial unity model, the answer is one. A related question is whether co-consciouness, in general, is transitive. That is, if α and β are co-conscious experiences, and β and γ are co-conscious experiences, must α and γ be co-conscious? According to Schechter, the answer is no. The partial unity model (...) faces some serious objections. Its underpinnings are suspect, and ways of working out the model fall into trouble of various sorts: incoherence, emptiness, or unacceptable indeterminacy about the identity of (token) conscious states. One apparent lesson is that a subject can host two distinct conscious experiences of the same sort. Another is that the co-consciousness relation is transitive after all. (shrink)

Connectionism and phenomenology can mutually inform and mutually constrain each other. In this manifesto I outline an approach to consciousness based on distinctions developed by connectionists. Two core identities are central to a connectionist theory of consciouness: conscious states of mind are identical to occurrent activation patterns of processing units; and the variable dispositional strengths on connections between units store latent and unconscious information. Within this broad framework, a connectionist model of consciousness succeeds according to the degree of correspondence (...) between the content of human consciousness (the world as it is experienced) and the interpreted content of the network. Constitutive self-awareness and reflective self-awareness can be captured in a model through its ability to respond to self-reflexive information, identify self-referential categories, and process information in the absence of simultaneous input. The qualitative feel of sensation appears in a model as states of activation that are not fully discriminated by later processing. Connectionism also uniquely explains several specific features of experience. The most important of these is the superposition of information in consciousness — our ability to perceive more than meets the eye, and to apprehend complex categorical and temporal information in a single highly-cognized glance. This superposition in experience matches a superposition of representational content in distributed representations. (shrink)

Can the state, as opposed to its individual human members in their personal capacity, intelligibly seek to avoid blame for unjustified wrongdoing by invoking excuses (as opposed to justifications)? Insofar as it can, should such claims ever be given moral and legal recognition? While a number of theorists have denied it in passing, the question remains radically underexplored. -/- In this article (in its penultimate draft version), I seek to identify the main metaphysical and moral objections to state excuses, and (...) begin to investigate their strength. I work from the ecumenical assumption that general understandings of modern states as group moral agents proper or as mere fictional points of imputation for individual behaviour are both plausible, and that the question of state excuses should be asked in terms of both paradigms. Issues addressed include: the lack of state consciousness/affect, the nature and relevance of developmental and executive defects in group agents, the value of state interests and how interests relate to plausible claims of excuses, the shortfall of responsibility argument for group responsibility and its interface with state excuses, the symbolic and consequential (dis)value that state excuses may have, as well as concerns that states are entities that should live up to outstandingly high virtuous standards of impartiality and equanimity. -/- I conclude that even if the range of excuses available to states does not overlap neatly with excuses available to ordinary individuals, some excuses may still be morally available to states. More generally, I emphasize the need for a systematic discussion of group excuses writ large, and of their relationship with the wider question of when group entities may legitimately be singled out to bear adverse normative consequences for wrongdoing. (shrink)