Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 111
Cognition/explanation/consciousness/cognitive models/Chalmers: Cognitive models are very good when it comes to explaining things like learning and behavior, but not in the explanation of conscious experience.
>Consciousness/Chalmers, >Learning, >Experiencing.
In all that is cognitively explained, the question remains why it is accompanied by something like consciousness.
I 112
Cognitive models can certainly cover the psychological side of consciousness (behavior explaining, learning, information processing), but not the phenomenal side of conscious experience.
I 113
Consciousness/Cognition/Dennett/Chalmers: Dennett (1978c) (1) brings a cognitive model of consciousness consisting of the perception module, short-term memory, memory,...
I 114
...control unit and module for "public relations": for implementation in everyday language.
ChalmersVsDennett: that shows us something about information processing and the possibility to report about it, but not why there should be a way for such a model "how it is" to be this model.
>Knowledge how.
Later, Dennett introduced a more elaborate model (Dennett, Consciousness Explained, 1991) without a central "headquarter".
>Awareness/Chalmers.
ChalmersVsDennett: this also brings a possible explanation of attention, but not a better explanation of conscious experience.
Consciousness/DennettVsNagel/DennettVsChalmers: thesis: what he shows is still everything it needs to explain consciousness. As soon as one has explained the different functions, one has explained everything (Dennett, 1993a (2), p.210) and Chalmers I 370.
Cognitive Models/Chalmers: There are also models by Churchland, (1995)(3), Johnson-Laird (1988)(4), Shallice (1972 (5), 1988a, 1988b). ChalmersVs: to all applies my criticism VsDennett from above.
I 172
Cognition/Chalmers: it is wrong to assume that it is separate from consciousness, even if it belongs to another sphere (the physical). For example, one has a (physical) perception of something green which is psychologically individualized. On the other hand, we also have perceptions about our consciousness.
I 218
Cognition/consciousness/psychology/Chalmers: the coherence between conscious experience and cognitive structures is remarkable. We can recognize principles:
Principles: 1. Reliability principle: Our judgments of the second level about consciousness are generally correct.
I 219
If I judge that I hear something, then I usually hear something.
2. The principle of deducibility (reversed reliability principle): although many experiences often escape us, we usually have the ability to notice them.
I 222/223
3. Principle of structural coherence: conscious phenomenal experiences are always accompanied by (appropriately characterized) psychological consciousness.
I 223
E.g. Structural features of the facial field are reflected in our experiences of larger and smaller, brighter, darker, etc. objects, and also in our reactions to them. This also applies to implicit structures such as relations between colors.
Cf. >Cognitive Psychology.


1. D. Dennett, Toward a cognitive theory of consciousness. In: D. Dennett, Brainsorms, Cabridge 1978.
2. D. Dennett, Back from the drawing board. In: B. Dahlbom (Ed) Dennett and His Critics, Oxford 1993.
3. P. M. Churchland, The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey into the Brain. Cambridge 1995.
4. P. Johnson-Laird, A computational analysis of consciousness. Cognition and Brain Theory 6, 1983: pp. 499-508
5. T. Shallice, Dual funtions of consciousness. Psychological Review 79, 1972: pp. 383-93; Information-precessing models of consciousness: Possibilities and problems. In: A. Marcel and E. Bisach (Eds) Consciousness in Contemporary Science, Oxford 1988.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.