Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 23, 2018

Representation, Consciousness, and Time

Sean Allen-Hermanson
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

I criticize Bourget’s intuitive and empirical arguments for thinking that all possible conscious states are underived if intentional. An underived state is one of which it is not the case that it must be realized, at least in part, by intentional states distinct from itself. The intuitive argument depends upon a thought experiment about a subject who exists for only a split second while undergoing a single conscious experience. This, however, trades on an ambiguity in “split second.” Meanwhile, Bourget’s empirical argument is question-begging. My critique also has implications for debates about the essential temporality and unity of consciousness experience, and, phenomenal atomism.

References

Anderson, H.K., and R. Grush. 2009. “A Brief History of Time Consciousness: Historical Precursors to James and Husserl.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (2):277–307.10.1353/hph.0.0118Search in Google Scholar

Bayne, T. 2010. The Unity of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bourget, D. 2010. “Consciousness Is Underived Intentionality.” Noûs 44 (1):32–58.10.1111/j.1468-0068.2009.00730.xSearch in Google Scholar

Burge, T. 1979. “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4:73–122.10.1111/j.1475-4975.1979.tb00374.xSearch in Google Scholar

Coren, S., L. Ward, and J. Enns. 2004. Sensation and Perception, 6th ed. New York: Wiley & sons.10.1002/0471264385.wei0105Search in Google Scholar

Dainton, B. 2010. “Temporal Consciousness,” Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed August 11, 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-temporal/.Search in Google Scholar

Dennett, D.C. 1988. “Evolution, Error and Intentionality.” In Sourcebook on the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence edited by Y. Wilks and D. Partridge, 190–211. Cambridge: New Mexico University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511663116.018Search in Google Scholar

Dennett, D.C. 1990. “The Myth of Original Intentionality.” In Modeling the Mind edited by K.A. Mohyeldin Said, W.H. Newton-Smith, R. Viale and K.V. Wilkes, 43–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gray, J. 2002. “The Sound of One Hand Clapping.” Psyche 8 (11).Search in Google Scholar

Hill, T.E. 1983. “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments.” Environmental Ethics 5:211–224.10.5840/enviroethics19835327Search in Google Scholar

James, W. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Dover: New York.10.1037/10538-000Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131–193.10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014Search in Google Scholar

Robbins, P. 2009. “Modularity of Mind,” Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed August 11, 2013. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/.10.4135/9781452276052.n234Search in Google Scholar

Van Essen, D.C., and E.A. Deyoe. 1995. “Concurrent Processing in the Primate Visual Cortex.” In The Cognitive Neurosciences edited by M.S. Gazzaniga. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-1-23
Published in Print: 2018-3-26

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow