Abstract: The fact that we can engage in first-person discourse about our own mental states seems, intuitively, to be bound up with consciousness. David Rosenthal draws upon this intuition in arguing for his higher-order thought theory of consciousness. Rosenthal's argument relies upon the assumption that the truth-conditions for "p" and "I think that p" differ. It is argued here that the truth-conditional schema debars "I think" from playing one of its (expressive) roles and thus is not a good test for what is asserted when "I think" is employed in making an assertoric utterance. The critique of Rosenthal's argument allows us to make explicit the intuitions which shape higher-order representation theories of consciousness in general. Consciousness and first-person mental discourse seem to be connected primarily because consciousness is (and was) an epistemic term, used to denote first-person knowledge of minds. Higher-order thought theories of consciousness draw upon this epistemic notion of consciousness, and because self-knowledge seems to involve higher-order representation, the higher-order theorist can deploy what is in effect an "error theory" about conscious experience disguised as a kind of conceptual analysis of our ordinary concept of a conscious mental state. The conclusion reached is that there is unlikely to be a simple or direct path from considerations about mental discourse to conclusions about the nature of consciousness

Abstract: Surely one of the most interesting problems in the study of mind concerns the nature of sentience. How is it that there are sensations, rather than merely sensings? What is it like to be a bat -- or why is it like anything at all? Why aren't we automata or responding but unfeeling Zombies? How does neural activity give rise to subjective experience? As Leibniz put the problem (Monadology section 17):

_It must be confessed, however, that Perception_ [consciousness?]_, and that which depends upon it, are_
_inexplicable by mechanical means, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a_
_machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perceptions, we could conceive of it as increased_
_in its interior size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a_
_mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find_

_anything to explain Perception._ [Montgomery trans.]

Abstract: Thomas Reid claims to share Locke’s position that consciousness may be regarded as a kind of inner sense. This is puzzling given the role the inner sense theory plays in indirect realism and in the theory of ideas quite generally. The paper takes up this puzzle and argues that Reid does not hold an inner-sense theory of consciousness and that Reid’s view differs importantly from contemporary higher-order theories of consciousness. It presents Reid’s theory of consciousness as a first-order representational process in which a mental state with a particular content suggests the application of recognitional concepts in forming beliefs or judgments to the effect that one is currently undergoing a state with that content. Finally, it takes up the question of whether Reid’s theory of consciousness leads to a regress. It argues that while the regress cannot be eliminated, it is mitigated by the non-hierarchical nature of Reid’s theory of mind

Abstract: In Thinking About Consciousness , David Papineau [2002] presents a criticism of so-called 'actualist HOT theories of consciousness'. The HOT theory, held most notably by David Rosenthal, claims that the best explanation for what makes a mental state conscious is that it is the object of an actual higher-order thought directed at the mental state. Papineau contends that actualist HOT theory faces an awkward problem in relation to higher-order memory judgements; for example, that the theory cannot explain how one could later recall an earlier experience that was not introspected. He argues that, on the HOT theory, we are even left with the absurd conclusion that the consciousness of, say, an earlier visual experience might even depend on the later act of memory. I show that Papineau's criticism of actualist HOT theory not only fails, but also that it seriously mischaracterizes and underestimates the theory. In particular, Papineau badly conflates the crucial difference between an introspective state (i.e., where a conscious HOT is directed at a mental state) and an outer-directed first-order conscious state (i.e., a case where one has a nonconscious HOT)

Abstract: The so-called 'higher-order thought' (HOT) theory of consciousness says that what makes a mental state conscious is the presence of a suitable higher-order thought directed at it (Rosenthal, 1986; 1990; 1993; 2002; 2004; Gennaro, 1996; 2004). The HOT theory has been or could be attacked from two apparently opposite directions. On the one hand, there is what Stubenberg (1998) has called 'the problem of the rock' which, if successful, would show that the HOT theory proves too much. On the other hand, it might also be alleged that the HOT theory does not or cannot address the so-called 'hard problem' of phenomenal consciousness. If so, then the HOT theory would prove too little. We might say, then, that the HOT theory is arguably between a rock and a hard place. In this paper, I critically examine these objections and defend the HOT theory against them. In doing so, I hope to show that the HOT theory, or at least some version of it, neither proves too little nor too much, but is just right. I also show that these two objections are really just two sides of the same coin, and that the HOT theory is immune from David Chalmers' (1995; 1996) criticisms of other attempted reductionist accounts of consciousness

Abstract: I argue against such ‘‘Higher-Order Intentionalist’’ theories of consciousness as the higher-order thought and inner sense views on the ground that they understand a subjectÕs awareness of his or her phenomenal characters to be intentional, like seeming-seeing, rather than ‘‘direct’’, like seeing. The trouble with such views is that they reverse the order of expla- nation between phenomenal character and intentional awareness. A supe- rior theory of consciousness takes the relation of awareness to be nonintentional

Abstract: In this paper we present a two-stage argument against Peter Carruthers' theory of phenomenal consciousness. The first stage shows that Carruthers' main argument against first-order representational theories of phenomenal consciousness applies with equal force against his own theory. The second stage shows that if Carruthers can escape his own argument against first-order theories, it will come at the cost of wedding his theory to certain unwelcome implausibilities. discusses Carruthers' argument against first-order representationalism. presents Carruthers' theory of consciousness. presents our argument against Carruthers' theory. sums up