Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com
MindPapers is now part of PhilPapers: online research in philosophy, a new service with many more features.
 
 Compiled by David Chalmers (Editor) & David Bourget (Assistant Editor), Australian National University. Submit an entry.
 
   
click here for help on how to search

1.4a.3. Higher-Order Thought Theories of Consciousness (Higher-Order Thought Theories of Consciousness on PhilPapers)

See also:
Rosenthal, David M., Consciousness.   (Google)
Abstract: One phenomenon pertains roughly to being awake. A person or other creature is conscious when it's awake and mentally responsive to sensory input; otherwise it's unconscious. This kind of consciousness figures most often in everyday discourse
Rosenthal, David M., The mind and its expression.   (Google)
Abstract: pain' and ┌I think that p┐ express the pain and the thought that p, themselves. The book is most impressive. It is packed with careful argument, and addresses a remarkable range of important issues about the mind. I have very much enjoyed studying it
Aquila, Richard E. (1990). Consciousness as higher-order thoughts: Two objections. American Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1):81-87.   (Cited by 6 | Annotation | Google)
Balog, Katalin (2000). Phenomenal Judgment and the HOT theory: Comments on David Rosenthal’s “Consciousness, Content, and Metacognitive Judgments”. Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2):215-219.   (Google)
Abstract: In this commentary I criticize David Rosenthal’s higher order thought theory of consciousness (HOT). This is one of the best articulated philosophical accounts of consciousness available. The theory is, roughly, that a mental state is conscious in virtue of there being another mental state, namely, a thought to the effect that one is in the first state. I argue that this account is open to the objection that it makes “HOT-zombies” possible, i.e., creatures that token higher order mental states, but not the states that the higher order states are about. I discuss why none of the ways to accommodate this problem within HOT leads to viable positions.
Beeckmans, John (2007). Can higher-order representation theories pass scientific muster? Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (s 9-10):90-111.   (Google)
Abstract: Higher-order representation (HOR) theories posit that the contents of lower-order brain states enter consciousness when tracked by a higher-order brain state. The nature of higher-order monitoring was examined in light of current scientific knowledge, primarily in experimental perceptual psychology. The most plausible candidate for higher-order state was found to be conceptual short-term memory (CSTM), a buffer memory intimately connected with a semantic engine operating in the medium of the language of thought (LOT). This combination meets many of the requirements of HOR theories, although falling short in some significant respects, most notably the inability of higher- order states to represent more than a small fraction of the information contained in primary states, especially in vision. A possible way round this obstacle is suggested, involving the representation of visual detail by means of ensemble concepts
Bermúdez, José Luis (2000). Consciousness, higher-order thought, and stimulus reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):194-195.   (Google)
Abstract: Rolls defends a higher-order thought theory of phenomenal consciousness, mapping the distinction between conscious and non-conscious states onto a distinction between two types of action and corresponding neural pathways. Only one type of action involves higher-order thought and consequently consciousness. This account of consciousness has implausible consequences for the nature of stimulus-reinforcement learning
Block, Ned, Comparing the major theories of consciousness.   (Google)
Abstract: This article compares the three frameworks for theories of consciousness that are taken most seriously by neuroscientists, the view that consciousness is a biological state of the brain, the global workspace perspective and an account in terms of higher order states. The comparison features the “explanatory gap” (Nagel, 1974; Levine, 1983) the fact that we have no idea why the neural basis of an experience is the neural basis of that experience rather than another experience or no experience at all. It is argued that the biological framework handles the explanatory gap better than the global workspace of higher order views. The article does not discuss quantum theories or “panpsychist” accounts according to which consciousness is a feature of the smallest particles of inorganic matter (Chalmers, 1996; Rosenberg, 2004). Nor does it discuss the “representationist” proposals (Tye, 2000; Byrne, 2001a) that are popular among philosophers but not neuroscientists
Block, Ned (ms). Some concepts of consciousness.   (Google)
Abstract: Consciousness is a mongrel concept: there are a number of very different "consciousnesses". Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state
Bremer, Manuel (2008). Peter Carruthers, consciousness: Essays from a higher-order perspective. Minds and Machines 18 (3).   (Google)
Brown, Richard (ms). Consciousness, (higher-order) thoughts, and what it's like.   (Google)
Abstract: We have a vast range of conscious experience; from the taste of our favorite food, to the appearance of our favorite art, to the highs of accomplishing our goals, to the excruciating agony of a broken bone, or loss of a loved one, to wondering what time it is, or thinking about what one has to do to name but a few. Our conscious experience can be by turns exhilarating or frightening or overpowering, or just plain dull. Yet though all of this is common place it is quite mysterious how to fit this phenomenon into the natural world. Or so it seems to many philosophers and scientists, who feel, as Descartes did, that there is no hope of giving a scientific account of how consciousness arises in nature. These philosophers see ‘hard problems’ and ‘explanatory gaps’ that lead them to model consciousness as a non-physical phenomenon that is out of the reach of our scientific theories
Browne, Derek (1999). Carruthers on the deficits of animals. Psyche 5 (23).   (Cited by 4 | Google)
Byrne, Alex (1997). Some like it HOT: Consciousness and higher-order thoughts. Philosophical Studies 2 (2):103-29.   (Cited by 34 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Consciousness is the subject of many metaphors, and one of the most hardy perennials compares consciousness to a spotlight, illuminating certain mental goings-on, while leaving others to do their work in the dark. One way of elaborating the spotlight metaphor is this: mental events are loaded on to one end of a conveyer belt by the senses, and move with the belt
Byrne, Alex (2004). What phenomenal consciousness is like. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 8 | Google | More links)
Abstract: The terminology surrounding the dispute between higher-order and first-order theories of consciousness is piled so high that it sometimes obscures the view. When the debris is cleared away, there is a real prospect
Campbell Manson, Neil (2002). What does language tell us about consciousness? First-person mental discourse and higher-order thought theories of consciousness. Philosophical Psychology 15 (3):221 – 238.   (Google | More links)
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
Carruthers, Peter (1989). Brute experience. Journal of Philosophy 86 (May):258-269.   (Cited by 44 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Carruthers, Peter (1992). Consciousness and concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 66 (66):41-59.   (Cited by 60 | Annotation | Google)
Carruthers, Peter (2005). Consciousness: Essays From a Higher-Order Perspective. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 12 | Google | More links)
Carruthers, Peter (2001). Consciousness: Explaining the phenomena. In D. Walsh (ed.), Evolution, Naturalism and Mind. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Can phenomenal consciousness be given a reductive natural explanation? Many people argue not. They claim that there is an
Carruthers, Peter (1997). Fragmentary versus reflexive consciousness. Mind and Language 12 (2):181-95.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Carruthers, Peter (2004). Hop over FOR, HOT theory. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 10 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Following a short introduction, this chapter begins by contrasting two different forms of higher-order perception (HOP) theory of phenomenal consciousness - inner sense theory versus a dispositionalist kind of higher-order thought (HOT) theory - and by giving a brief statement of the superiority of the latter. Thereafter the chapter considers arguments in support of HOP theories in general. It develops two parallel objections against both first-order representationalist (FOR) theories and actualist forms of HOT theory. First, neither can give an adequate account of the distinctive features of our recognitional concepts of experience. And second, neither can explain why there are some states of the relevant kinds that are phenomenal and some that aren
Carruthers, Peter (2007). Higher-order theories of consciousness. In Max Velmans & Susan Schneider (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Blackwell.   (Cited by 7 | Google)
Carruthers, Peter (online). Higher-order theories of consciousness. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.   (Google)
Carruthers, Peter (1996). Language, Thought, and Consciousness. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 318 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Do we think in natural language? Or is language only for communication? Much recent work in philosophy and cognitive science assumes the latter. In contrast, Peter Carruthers argues that much of human conscious thinking is conducted in the medium of natural language sentences. However, this does not commit him to any sort of Whorfian linguistic relativism, and the view is developed within a framework that is broadly nativist and modularist. His study will be essential reading for all those interested in the nature and significance of natural language, whether they come from philosophy, psychology or linguistics
Carruthers, Peter (1998). Natural theories of consciousness. European Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):203-22.   (Cited by 27 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Many people have thought that consciousness
Carruthers, Peter (2000). Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 194 | Google | More links)
Abstract: How can phenomenal consciousness exist as an integral part of a physical universe? How can the technicolour phenomenology of our inner lives be created out of the complex neural activities of our brains? Many have despaired of finding answers to these questions; and many have claimed that human consciousness is inherently mysterious. Peter Carruthers argues, on the contrary, that the subjective feel of our experience is fully explicable in naturalistic (scientifically acceptable) terms. Drawing on a variety of interdisciplinary resources, he develops and defends a novel account in terms of higher-order thought. He shows that this can explain away some of the more extravagant claims made about phenomenal consciousness, while substantively explaining the key subjectivity of our experience. Written with characteristic clarity and directness, and surveying a wide range of extant theories, this book is essential reading for all those within philosophy and psychology interested in the problem of consciousness
Carruthers, Peter (2003). Phenomenal concepts and higher-order experiences. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):316-336.   (Cited by 7 | Google | More links)
Carruthers, Peter (online). Precis of Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory.   (Google)
Carruthers, Peter (2000). Replies to critics: Explaining subjectivity. Psyche 6 (3).   (Cited by 4 | Google)
Carruthers, Peter (online). Reply to Seager.   (Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David (2005). The higher-order model of consciousness. In Rita Carter (ed.), Consciousness. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.   (Google)
Abstract: All mental states, including thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations, often occur consciously. But they all occur also without being conscious. So the first thing a theory of consciousness must do is explain the difference between thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations that are conscious and those which are not
Carruthers, Peter (2005). Why the question of animal consciousness might not matter very much. Philosophical Psychology 18 (1):83-102.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Abstract: According to higher-order thought accounts of phenomenal consciousness it is unlikely that many non-human animals undergo phenomenally conscious experiences. Many people believe that this result would have deep and far-reaching consequences. More specifically, they believe that the absence of phenomenal consciousness from the rest of the animal kingdom must mark a radical and theoretically significant divide between ourselves and other animals, with important implications for comparative psychology. I shall argue that this belief is mistaken. Since phenomenal consciousness might be almost epiphenomenal in its functioning within human cognition, its absence in animals may signify only relatively trivial differences in cognitive architecture. Our temptation to think otherwise arises partly as a side-effect of imaginative identification with animal experiences, and partly from mistaken beliefs concerning the aspects of common-sense psychology that carry the main explanatory burden, whether applied to humans or to non-human animals
Cole, David J. (online). Sense and sentience.   (Google)
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.]
Copenhaver, Rebecca (ms). Reid on consciousness: HOP, HOT or FOR?   (Google | More links)
Dainton, Barry F. (2004). Higher-order consciousness and phenomenal space: Reply to Meehan. Psyche 10 (1).   (Google | More links)
Abstract: Meehan finds fault with a number of my arguments, and proposes that better solutions to the problems I was addressing are available if we adopt a higher-order theory of consciousness. I start with some general remarks on theories of this sort. I connect what I had to say about the A-thesis with different forms of higher-order sense theories, and explain why I ignored higher-order thought theories altogether: there are compelling grounds for thinking they cannot provide a viable account of phenomenal unity in phenomenal terms. Meehan
Dienes, Zoltán (2004). Assumptions of subjective measures of unconscious mental states: Higher order thoughts and bias. Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (9):25-45.   (Cited by 14 | Google)
Dretske, Fred (1995). Are experiences conscious? In Fred Dretske (ed.), Naturalizing the Mind. MIT Press.   (Annotation | Google)
Dretske, Fred (1993). Conscious experience. Mind 102 (406):263-283.   (Cited by 141 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Droege, Paula (online). Consciousness, higher-order theories of. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.   (Google)
Droege, Paula (2003). Caging the Beast: A Theory of Sensory Consciousness. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Dulany, Donelson E. (2004). Higher order representation in a mentalistic metatheory. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Google)
Francescotti, Robert M. (1995). Higher-order thoughts and conscious experience. Philosophical Psychology 8 (3):239-254.   (Cited by 4 | Annotation | Google)
Abstract: For nearly a decade, David Rosenthal has proposed that a mental state M of a creature C is conscious just in case C has a suitable higher-order thought directed toward M. While this theory has had its share of criticism in recent years, I believe that the real difficulties have been ignored. In this essay, I show that the presence of a higher order is insufficient for conscious experience, even if we suppose that the thought satisfies the constraints that Rosenthal lists (i.e. that it is assertoric in nature, that it is had occurently, and that it is non-inferentially formed). The only way Rosenthal's view could possibly yield sufficient conditions is by requiring that the higher-order thought be suitably causally related to its object. Yet, as I also show, the only causal constraint strong enough to do the job is not only ill-motivated but probably false
Gennaro, Rocco J. (1993). Brute experience and the higher-order thought theory of consciousness. Philosophical Papers 22 (1):51-69.   (Cited by 6 | Annotation | Google)
Gennaro, Rocco J. (1996). Consciousness and Self-Consciousness: A Defense of the Higher-Order Thought Theory of Consciousness. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 51 | Google | More links)
Abstract: This interdisciplinary work contains the most sustained attempt at developing and defending one of the few genuine theories of consciousness.
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2000). Fiction, pleasurable tragedy, and the HOT theory of consciousness. Philosophical Papers 29 (2):107-20.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: [Final version in Philosophical Papers, 2000] Much has been made over the past few decades of two related problems in aesthetics. First, the "feeling fiction problem," as I will call it, asks: is it rational to be moved by what happens to fictional characters? How can we care about what happens to people who we know are not real?[i] Second, the so-called "paradox of tragedy" is embodied in the question: Why or how is it that we take pleasure in artworks (e.g. tragedies) which are clearly designed to cause in us such feelings as sadness and fear?[ii] Various solutions to these puzzles have been proposed, but my primary aim is neither to offer a novel solution nor to summarize and critique most of the alternatives.[iii] My focus instead will be on the issue of consciousness and, more specifically, to view these problems from the point of the view of the so-called "higher-order thought theory of consciousness" (the HOT theory). Although some work on these puzzles have raised important questions about the nature of consciousness and "aesthetic experience," no attempt has yet been made to examine them in light of a specific theory
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2004). Higher-order thoughts, animal consciousness, and misrepresentation: A reply to Carruthers and Levine. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 9 | Google)
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2004). Higher-order theories of consciousness: An overview. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness. John Benjamin.   (Cited by 18 | Google | More links)
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2002). Jean-Paul Sartre and the HOT theory of consciousness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (3):293-330.   (Cited by 11 | Google)
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2003). Papineau on the actualist HOT theory of consciousness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (4):581-586.   (Google | More links)
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)
Gennaro, Rocco J. (2005). The HOT theory of consciousness: Between a rock and a hard place. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (2):3-21.   (Cited by 7 | Google | More links)
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
Gennaro, Rocco J., Visual agnosia and higher- order thought theory.   (Google)
Abstract: In general, the idea is that what makes a mental state conscious is that it is the object of some kind of higher-order representation (HOR). A mental state M becomes conscious when there is a HOR of M. A HOR is a “meta-psychological” state, i.e. a mental state directed at another mental state. So, for example, my desire to do a good powerpoint presentation becomes conscious when I am (non-inferentially) “aware” of the desire. Intuitively, it seems that conscious states, as opposed to unconscious ones, are mental states that I am “aware of” in some sense
Gerken, Mikkel (2008). Is there a simple argument for higher-order representation theories of awareness consciousness? Erkenntnis 69 (2):243-259.   (Google)
Abstract: William Lycan has articulated “a simple argument” for higher-order representation (HOR) theories of a variety of consciousness sometimes labeled ‘awareness consciousness’ (Lycan, Analysis 61.1, January 3–4, 2001). The purpose of this article is to critically assess the influential argument-strategy of the simple argument. I argue that, as stated, the simple argument fails since it is invalid. Moreover, I argue that an obvious “quick fix” would beg the question against competing same-order representation (SOR) theories of awareness consciousness. I then provide a reconstruction of the argument and argue that although the reconstructed argument deserves consideration, it is also too simple as stated. In particular, it raises several controversial questions about the nature of mental representation. These questions must be addressed before a verdict as to the cogency of the HOR argument-strategy can be reached. But since the questions are controversial, a cogent argument for HOR theories of awareness consciousness is unlikely to be simple
Gois, Isabel (2010). A dilemma for higher-order theories of consciousness. Philosophia 38 (1).   (Google)
Abstract: Higher Order theories of consciousness have their fair share of sympathisers, but the arguments mustered in their support are—to my mind—unduly persuasive. My aim in this paper is to show that Higher Order theories cannot accommodate the possibility of misrepresentation without either falling into contradiction, or collapsing into a First-Order theory. If this diagnosis is on the right track, then Higher Order theories—at least in the specific versions here considered—fail to give an account of what they set out to explain: what is distinctive of ‘conscious’ phenomena
Guzeldere, Guven (1996). Consciousness and the introspective link principle. In Stuart R. Hameroff, Alfred W. Kaszniak & A. C. Scott (eds.), Toward a Science of Consciousness. MIT Press.   (Google)
Guzeldere, Guven (1995). Is consciousness the perception of what passes in one's own mind? In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh.   (Cited by 42 | Annotation | Google)
Hardcastle, Valerie Gray (2004). HOT theories of consciousness: More sad tales of philosophical intuitions gone astray. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Google)
Hellie, Benj (2007). Higher-order intentionalism and higher-order acquaintance. Philosophical Studies 134 (3):289--324.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Abstract: I argue against such "Relation Intentionalist" theories of consciousness as the higher-order thought and inner sense views on the grounds that they understand a subject's 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 explanation between phenomenal character and intentional awareness. A superior theory of consciousness, based on views expressed by Russell and Price, takes the relation of awareness to be a nonintentional "acquaintance".
Jacob, Pierre (1996). State consciousness revisited. Acta Analytica 11 (16):29-54.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Jamieson, Dale W. & Bekoff, Marc (1992). Carruthers on nonconscious experience. Analysis 52 (1):23-28.   (Cited by 12 | Annotation | Google)
Jehle, David & Kriegel, Uriah (2006). An argument against dispositionalist HOT. Philosophical Psychology 19 (4):463-476.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
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
Kobes, Bernard W. (1997). Metacognition and consciousness: Review essay of Janet Metcalfe and Arthur P. shimamura (eds), Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing. Philosophical Psychology 10 (1):93-102.   (Google)
Abstract: The field of metacognition, richly sampled in the book under review, is recognized as an important and growing branch of psychology. However, the field stands in need of a general theory that (1) provides a unified framework for understanding the variety of metacognitive processes, (2) articulates the relation between metacognition and consciousness, and (3) tells us something about the form of meta-level representations and their relations to object-level representations. It is argued that the higher-order thought theory of consciousness supplies us with the rudiments of a theory that meets these desiderata and integrates the principal findings reported in this collection
Kobes, Bernard W. (1995). Telic higher-order thoughts and Moore's paradox. Philosophical Perspectives 9:291-312.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Kriegel, Uriah (2007). A cross-order integration hypothesis for the neural correlate of consciousness. Consciousness & Cognition 16:897-912.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: b>. One major problem many hypotheses regarding the neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) face is what we might call “the why question”: _why _would this particular neural feature, rather than another, correlate with consciousness? The purpose of the present paper is to develop an NCC hypothesis that answers this question. The proposed hypothesis is inspired by the Cross-Order Integration (COI) theory of consciousness, according to which consciousness arises from the functional integration of a first-order representation of an external stimulus and a second-order representation of that first-order representation. The proposal comes in two steps. The first step concerns the “general shape” of the NCC and can be directly derived from COI theory. The second step is a concrete hypothesis that can be arrived at by combining the general shape with empirical considerations
Kriegel, Uriah (2003). Consciousness, higher-order content, and the individuation of vehicles. Synthese 134 (3):477-504.   (Cited by 19 | Google | More links)
Abstract: One of the distinctive properties of conscious states is the peculiar self- awareness implicit in them. Two rival accounts of this self-awareness are discussed. According to a Neo-Brentanian account, a mental state M is conscious iff M represents its very own occurrence. According to the Higher-Order Monitoring account, M is merely accompanied by a numerically distinct representation of its occurrence. According to both, then, M is conscious in virtue of figuring in a higher-order content. The disagreement is over the question whether the higher-order content is carried by M itself or by a differ- ent state. While the Neo-Brentanian theory is phenomenologically more attractive, it is often felt to be somewhat mysterious. It is argued (i) that the difference between the Neo- Brentanian and Higher-Order Monitoring theories is smaller and more empirical than may initially seem, and (ii) that the Neo-Brentanian theory can be readily demystified. These considerations make it prima facie preferable to the Higher-Order Monitoring theory.
Kriegel, Uriah (2002). Consciousness, permanent self-awareness, and higher-order monitoring. Dialogue 41 (3):517-540.   (Cited by 6 | Google)
Lagerspetz, Olli (2002). In the industry. Inquiry 45 (4):541-559.   (Google | More links)
Liang, Caleb & Lane, Timothy (2008). Higher-Order Thought and the Problem of Radical Confabulation. The Southern Journal of Philosophy:69-98.   (Google)
Lau, Hakwan (ms). A higher order bayesian decision theory of consciousness.   (Google)
Abstract: It is usually taken as given that consciousness involves superior or more elaborate forms of information processing. Contemporary models equate consciousness with global processing, system complexity, or depth or stability of computation. This is in stark contrast with the powerful philosophical intuition that being conscious is more than just having the ability to compute. I argue that it is also incompatible with current empirical findings. I present a model that is free from the strong assumption that consciousness predicts superior performance. The model is based on Bayesian decision theory, of which signal detection theory is a special case. It reflects the fact that the capacity for perceptual decisions is fundamentally limited by the presence and amount of noise in the system. To optimize performance, one therefore needs to set decision criteria that are based on the behaviour, i.e. the probability distributions, of the internal signals. One important realization is that the knowledge of how our internal signals behave statistically has to be learned over time. Essentially, we are doing statistics on our own brain. This ‘higherorder’ learning, however, may err, and this impairs our ability to set and maintain optimal criteria for perceptual decisions, which I argue is central to perception consciousness. I outline three possibilities of how conscious perception might be affected by failures of ‘higher-order’ representation. These all imply that one can have a dissociation between consciousness and performance. This model readily explains blindsight and hallucinations in formal terms, and is beginning to receive direct empirical support. I end by discussing some philosophical implications of the model
Liang, Caleb & Lane, Timothy (2009). Higher-order thought and pathological self: The case of somatoparaphrenia. Analysis 69 (4).   (Google)
Liu, JeeLoo (2006). Review of Peter Carruthers, Consciousness: Essays From a Higher-Order Perspective. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2006 (4).   (Google)
Lurz, Robert W. (2000). A defense of first-order representationalist theories of mental-state consciousness. Psyche 6 (1).   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Lurz, Robert W. (2003). Advancing the debate between HOT and FO accounts of consciousness. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:23-44.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Lurz, Robert W. (2001). Begging the question: A reply to Lycan. Analysis 61 (272):313-318.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Lurz, Robert W. (2004). Either FOR or HOR: A false dichotomy. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Google)
Lurz, Robert W. (2003). Neither hot nor cold: An alternative account of consciousness. Psyche 8 (1).   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Lycan, William G. (1999). A response to Carruthers' Natural Theories of Consciousness. Psyche 5 (11).   (Cited by 4 | Google)
Abstract: I have very little disagreement with Carruthers' article, for our views are very similar. I think he is terminologically a bit hard on Michael Tye. I think that in invoking Swampman he is in danger of conflating teleological theories of representation with etiological theories of teleology. In response to his criticism of my own higher-order experience (HOE) view, I argue that there is good reason to believe that we human beings sport as great a degree of computational complexity as is needed for HOEs. If other animals do not exhibit a comparable degree, we should deny that they have "phenomenal-consciousness" in the strong sense of that term
Lycan, William G. (2001). A simple argument for a higher-order representation theory of consciousness. Analysis 61 (269):3-4.   (Cited by 26 | Google | More links)
Lycan, William G. (1995). Consciousness as internal monitoring. Philosophical Perspectives 9:1-14.   (Cited by 44 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Abstract: Locke put forward the theory of consciousness as "internal Sense" or "reflection"; Kant made it inner sense, by means of which the mind intuits itself or its inner state." 1 On that theory, consciousness is a perception-like second-order representing of our own psychological states events. The term "consciousness," of course, has many distinct uses
Lycan, William G. & Ryder, Z. (2003). The loneliness of the long-distance truck-driver. Analysis 63 (2):132-36.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Lycan, William G. (2004). The superiority of Hop to HOT. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 14 | Google | More links)
Mandik, Pete (2009). Beware of the unicorn: Consciousness as being represented and other things that don't exist. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16 (1):5-36.   (Google)
Abstract: Higher-Order Representational theories of consciousness — HORs — primarily seek to explain a mental state’s being conscious in terms of the mental state’s being represented by another mental state. First-Order Representational theories of consciousness — FORs — primarily seek to explain a property’s being phenomenal in terms of the property being represented in experience. Despite differences in both explanans and explananda, HORs and FORs share a reliance on there being such a property as being represented. In this paper I develop an argument — the Unicorn Argument — against both HORs and FORs. The core of the Unicorn is that since there are mental rep- resentations of things that do not exist, there cannot be any such prop- erty as being represented, and thus no such property with which to identify either being conscious or being phenomenal.
Mandik, Pete (ms). Ch 3. beware the unicorn: Consciousness, intentionality, and inexistence.   (Google)
Abstract: 0. Introduction As mentioned in chapter 0, HORs seek to explain a mental state’s being conscious in terms of the mental state’s being represented by another mental state and FORs seek to explain a property’s being phenomenal in terms of the property of being represented in experience. Despite differences in both explanans and explananda, HORs and FORs share a reliance on there being such a property as being represented. In this chapter I develop an argument—the Unicorn Argument—against both HORs and FORs. The gist of the Unicorn is that since there are mental representations of things that do not exist, there cannot be any such property as being represented upon which to erect a theory of consciousness. While I think many varieties of HORs and FORs are vulnerable to the Unicorn, in this chapter I target just a few exemplars: David Rosenthal’s Higher-Order Thought theory (HOT) and the FORs developed by Fred Dretske and Michael Tye. Although HORs and FORs were discussed in previous chapters, insufficient detail has been given so far to make it clear how HOT will be vulnerable to the Unicorn. In section 1 I spell out HOT, emphasizing its main motivations and its reliance on the notion of being represented
Manson, Neil Campbell (2001). The limitations and costs of Lycan's 'simple' argument. Analysis 61 (4):319-323.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Matey, Jennifer (2006). Two HOTS to handle: The concept of state consciousness in the higher-order thought theory of consciousness. Philosophical Psychology 19 (2):151-175.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: David Rosenthal's higher-order thought (HOT) theory is one of the most widely argued for of the higher-order accounts of consciousness. I argue that Rosenthal vacillates between two models of the HOT theory. First, I argue that these models employ different concepts of 'state consciousness'; the two concepts each refer to mental state tokens, but in virtue of different properties. In one model, the concept of 'state consciousness' is more consistent with how the term is typically used, both by philosophers and scientists, and in commonsense usage. This model, however, also has its problems. In the second part of the paper, I develop a modified version of Rosenthal's transitivity principle, thereby avoiding some complications that stem from the original transitivity principle. I suggest that Rosenthal occasionally employs this modified model himself, and that the inconsistency identified in the first section of this paper might really reflect Rosenthal's vacillation between these two versions of the transitivity principle. I offer one explanation for how this equivocation may have occurred. These two versions would result if articulations of the transitivity principle employed the term 'mental state' inconsistently, to refer on some occasions merely to mental state types, and on others, to tokened mental states. I conclude by arguing, contrary to Rosenthal and others, that the theory is not incompatible with view that conscious states are uniquely casual efficacious
Mellor, D. H. (1980). Consciousness and degrees of belief. In D. H. Mellor (ed.), Prospects for Pragmatism. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 11 | Google)
Mellor, D. H. (1978). Conscious belief. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 78 (March):87-101.   (Cited by 17 | Annotation | Google)
Minissale, Gregory (2009). Enacting Higher Order Thoughts: Velazquez and Las Meninas. Journal of Consciousness Studies 16 (2-3):165-89.   (Google)
Abstract: This paper bridges art history and consciousness studies and investigates the network of gazes and frames in Las Meninas and how this engages with a system of higher-order thoughts and reflexive operations.
Natsoulas, Thomas (1992). Are all instances of phenomenal experience conscious in the sense of their being objects of inner (second-order) consciousness? American Journal of Psychology 105:605-12.   (Google)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1992). Appendage theory -- pro and con. Journal of Mind and Behavior 13 (4):371-96.   (Cited by 7 | Annotation | Google)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1993). The importance of being conscious. Journal of Mind and Behavior 14 (4):317-40.   (Cited by 3 | Annotation | Google)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1993). What is wrong with the appendage theory of consciousness? Philosophical Psychology 6 (2):137-54.   (Cited by 1 | Annotation | Google)
Abstract: The present article distinguishes three kinds of accounts of direct (reflective) awareness (i.e. awareness of one's mental occurrences causally unmediated by any other mental occurrence): mental-eye theory, self-intimational theory and appendage theory. These aim to explain the same phenomenon, though each proposes that direct (reflective) awareness occurs in a fundamentally different way. Also, I address a crucial problem that appendage theory must solve: how does a direct (reflective) awareness succeed in being awareness specifically of the particular mental-occurrence instance that is its object? Appendage theory is singled out for this attention because psychologists, as they embark on their renewed study of consciousness, are most likely to be attracted by appendage theory for their explanation of direct (reflective) awareness
Nelkin, Norton (1995). The dissociation of phenomenal states from apperception. In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh.   (Cited by 7 | Annotation | Google)
Nelkin, Norton (1989). Unconscious sensations. Philosophical Psychology 2 (March):129-41.   (Cited by 22 | Annotation | Google)
Nguyen, A. Minh (2000). On a Searlean objection to Rosenthal's theory of state-consciousness. Journal of Philosophical Research 25 (January):83-100.   (Google)
O'Brien, Gerard & Opie, Jonathan (1999). What's really doing the work here? Knowledge representation or the higher-order thought theory of consciousness? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):778-779.   (Google)
Abstract: Dienes & Perner offer us a theory of explicit and implicit knowledge that promises to systematise a large and diverse body of research in cognitive psychology. Their advertised strategy is to unpack this distinction in terms of explicit and implicit representation. But when one digs deeper one finds the “Higher-Order Thought” theory of consciousness doing much of the work. This reduces both the plausibility and usefulness of their account. We think their strategy is broadly correct, but that consensus on the explicit/implicit knowledge distinction is still a fair way off
O'Dea, John (ms). A higher-order, dispositional theory of qualia.   (Google)
Pharoah, Mark (ms). Enhancing dispositional higher-order thought theory.   (Google)
Abstract: Through the utilization of a descriptive illustration and detailed referencing of Carruthers (2000), a comparison of Hierarchical Systems theory (Pharoah, 2007) with Dispositional Higher-Order Thought theory identifies and reinforces their complementary status. However, this also determines some key distinctions, particularly with regard to the conclusions each make regarding the mentality of animals and the autistic, and regarding the moral consequences of these conclusions.
Prinz, Jesse J. (2000). A neurofunctional theory of visual consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2):243-59.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: This paper develops an empirically motivated theory of visual consciousness. It begins by outlining neuropsychological support for Jackendoff's (1987) hypothesis that visual consciousness involves mental representations at an intermediate level of processing. It then supplements that hypothesis with the further requirement that attention, which can come under the direction of high level representations, is also necessary for consciousness. The resulting theory is shown to have a number of philosophical consequences. If correct, higher-order thought accounts, the multiple drafts account, and the widely held belief that sensation precedes perception will all be found wanting. The theory will also be used to illustrate and defend a methodology that fills the gulf between functionalists who ignore the brain and neural reductionists who repudiate functionalism
Radovic, Susanna (online). Watching representations.   (Google)
Abstract: One kind of substantial critique which has been raised by several philosophers against the so called higher order perception theory (HOP), advocated for mainly by William Lycan, concerns the combination of two important claims: (i) that qualia are wide contents of perceptual experiences, and (ii) that the subject becomes aware of what the world is like (to her) by perceiving her own experiences of the world. In what sense could we possibly watch our own mental states if they are representations whose content and qualitative character is determined by factors that are external to the mind? Here I will do my best in order to understand this claim
Rey, Georges (2000). Role, not content: Comments on David Rosenthal's "consciousness, content, and metacognitive judgments". Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2):224-230.   (Google)
Ridge, Michael (2001). Taking solipsism seriously: Nonhuman animals and meta-cognitive theories of consciousness. Philosophical Studies 103 (3):315-340.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Robinson, William S. (2004). A few thoughts too many? In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Robinson, William S. (1999). A theory of phenomenal consciousness? Psyche 5 (4).   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Rolls, Edmund T. (2004). A higher order syntactic thought (HOST) theory of consciousness. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 4 | Google)
Rolls, Edmund T. (2008). Emotion, higher-order syntactic thoughts, and consciousness. In Lawrence Weiskrantz & Martin Davies (eds.), Frontiers of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.   (Google)
Rolls, Edmund T. (2007). The affective neuroscience of consciousness: Higher order syntactic thoughts, dual routes to emotion and action, and consciousness. In Philip David Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch & Evan Thompson (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge.   (Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1997). Apperception, sensation, and dissociability. Mind and Language 2 (2):206-23.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Recent writing on consciousness has increasingly stressed ways in which the terms
Rosenthal, David M. (1997). A theory of consciousness. In Ned Block, Owen J. Flanagan & Guven Guzeldere (eds.), The Nature of Consciousness. MIT Press.   (Cited by 166 | Annotation | Google)
Rosenthal, David, Commentaries.   (Google)
Abstract: But there is another reason, equally important. We distinguish among thoughts, feelings, and sensations by virtue of their characteristic representational properties. In particular, we describe thoughts and emotions in terms of the things they are about and how they represent those things. And we characterize sensations by reference to their qualitative properties and the things..
Rosenthal, David M., Consciousness (.   (Google)
Abstract: (1) Most commonly these terms are used to describe people. People and other creatures are conscious if they are awake and responsive to sensory stimulation. Because this is a property of creatures, we can call it creature consciousness. An individual lacks such consciousness if it is asleep, in a coma, anesthetized, and so forth. Creature consciousness demands a mainly biological explanation, as against an explanation in mainly psychological terms
Rosenthal, David (web). Concepts and definitions of consciousness. In P W. Banks (ed.), Encyclopedia of Consciousness. Elsevier.   (Google)
Abstract: in Encyclopedia of Consciousness, ed. William P. Banks, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in 2009
Rosenthal, David M. (2002). Consciousness and higher-order thought. In L. Nagel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Macmillan.   (Cited by 11 | Google | More links)
Abstract: The problem of consciousness is to say what it is for some of our thoughts, feelings, and sensations to be conscious, given that others are not. This is different from saying what it is for a person to be conscious or not conscious. Even when people are conscious, many of their thoughts and sensations typically are not. And there's nothing problematic about a person's being conscious; it's just the person's being awake and responsive to sensory input
Rosenthal, David (ms). Consciousness and intrinsic higher-order content.   (Google)
Abstract: PowerPoint presentation at Tucson VII, Toward a Science of Consciousness 2006, session on Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness
Rosenthal, David M. (1998). Consciousness and metacognition. In Dan Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentation. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 16 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (2005). Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.   (Cited by 32 | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (2000). Consciousness, content, and metacognitive judgments. Consciousness And Cognition 9 (2):203-214.   (Cited by 20 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Because metacognition consists in our having mental access to our cognitive states and mental states are conscious only when we are conscious of them in some suitable way, metacognition and consciousness shed important theoretical light on one another. Thus, our having metacognitive access to information carried by states that are not conscious helps con?rm the hypothesis that a mental state
Rosenthal, David M. (2000). Consciousness, interpretation, and consciousness. Protosociology 14:67-84.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (2002). Explaining Consciousness. In David J. Chalmers (ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford University Press.   (Cited by 28 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1993). Explaining consciousness. In David J. Chalmers (ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Contemporary Readings. Oup.   (Cited by 28 | Annotation | Google)
Rosenthal, David (2010). Expressing one's mind. Acta Analytica 25 (1).   (Google | More links)
Abstract: Remarks such as ‘I am in pain’ and ‘I think that it’s raining’ are puzzling, since they seem to literally describe oneself as being in pain or having a particular thought, but their conditions of use tend to coincide with unequivocal expressions of pain or of that thought. This led Wittgenstein, among others, to treat such remarks as expressing, rather than as reporting, one’s mental states. Though such expressivism is widely recognized as untenable, Bar-On has recently advanced a neo-expressivist view, on which such remarks exhibit characteristics of both expressions of mental states and reports of those states. I argue against any attempt to see such remarks as both reporting and expressing the same mental states, and that a correct account rests on distinguishing the truth conditions of such remarks from their conditions of use
Rosenthal, David M. (2002). How many kinds of consciousness? Consciousness and Cognition 11 (4):653-665.   (Cited by 18 | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (1993). Higher-order thoughts and the appendage theory of consciousness. Philosophical Psychology 6 (2):155-66.   (Cited by 15 | Annotation | Google)
Abstract: Theories of what it is for a mental state to be conscious must answer two questions. We must say how we're conscious of our conscious mental states. And we must explain why we seem to be conscious of them in a way that's immediate. Thomas Natsoulas (1993) distinguishes three strategies for explaining what it is for mental states to be conscious. I show that the differences among those strategies are due to the divergent answers they give to the foregoing questions. Natsoulas finds most promising the strategy that amounts to the higher-order-thought hypothesis that I've defended elsewhere. But he raises a difficulty for it, which he thinks probably can be met only by modifying that strategy. I argue that this is unnecessary. The difficulty is a special case of a general question, the answer to which is independent of any issues about consciousness. So it's no part of a theory of consciousness to address the problem, much less solve it. Moreover, the difficulty seems to have intuitive force only given the picture that underlies the other two explanatory strategies, which both Natsoulas and I reject
Rosenthal, David & Weisberg, Josh (online). Higher-order theories of consciousness.   (Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (2000). Metacognition and higher-order thoughts. Consciousness and Cognition 9 (2):231-242.   (Cited by 14 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Because there is a fair amount of overlap in the points by Balog and Rey, I will organize this response topically, referring specifically to each commentator as rele- vant. And, because much of the discussion focuses on my higher-order-thought (HOT) hypothesis independent of questions about metacognition, I will begin by addressing a cluster of issues that have to do with the status, motivation, and exact formulation of that hypothesis
Rosenthal, David M. (1993). Multiple drafts and higher-order thoughts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (4):911-18.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (1995). Multiple drafts and the facts of the matter. In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh.   (Cited by 6 | Annotation | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1995). Moore's paradox and consciousness. Philosophical Perspectives 9:313-33.   (Cited by 16 | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (1997). Perceptual and cognitive models of consciousness. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 45.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1997). Phenomenal consciousness and what it's like. Behavioral And Brain Sciences 20 (1):64-65.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Abstract: be realized. Whatever gets access to phenomenal awareness (to consciousness and P-consciousness are almost always present or P-consciousness as described by Block) is represented within this absent together.
Rosenthal, David (online). Reflections on five questions: Autobiographical and disciplinary.   (Google)
Abstract: in Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions, ed. Patrick Grim, New York and London: Automatic Press, forthcoming
Rosenthal, David (online). “Replies to Galen Strawson and Ned Block.   (Google)
Abstract: (not intended for publication), Replies to Strawson and Block in Colloquium at the CUNY Graduate Center, December 13, 2006
Rosenthal, David M. (1994). State consciousness and transitive consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition 2 (3):355-63.   (Cited by 25 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (2004). Subjective character and reflexive content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):191-198.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: I. Zombies and the Knowledge Argument John Perry
Rosenthal, David M. (online). State consciousness and what it's like.   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (2005). Sensory qualities, consciousness, and perception. In Consciousness and Mind. Clarendon Press.   (Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1986). Two concepts of consciousness. Philosophical Studies 49 (May):329-59.   (Cited by 215 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (2002). The higher-order model of consciousness. In Rita Carter (ed.), Consciousness. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.   (Google)
Abstract: All mental states, including thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations, often occur consciously. But they all occur also without being conscious. So the first thing a theory of consciousness must do is explain the difference between thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and sensations that are conscious and those which are not
Rosenthal, David M. (1991). The independence of consciousness and sensory quality. Philosophical Issues 1:15-36.   (Cited by 42 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David (online). The mind and its expression.   (Google)
Abstract: MS., for an Eastern Division APA Author-Meets-Critics Session on Dorit Bar-On, Speaking My Mind: Expression and Self-Knowledge, Baltimore, December 2007
Rosenthal, David M. (1993). Thinking that one thinks. In Martin Davies & Glyn W. Humphreys (eds.), Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays. Blackwell.   (Cited by 111 | Annotation | Google)
Rosenthal, David, V. consciousness, interpretation, and higher-order-thought.   (Google)
Abstract: Few contemporary researchers in psychology, philosophy, and the cognitive sciences have any doubt about whether mental phenomena occur without being conscious. There is extensive and convincing clinical and experimental evidence for the existence of thoughts, desires, and related mental states that aren’t conscious. We characterize thoughts, desires, intentions, expectations, hopes, and many other mental states in terms of the things they are about and, more fully, in terms of their content, as captured by a sentence nominalization, such as a clause beginning with the word ‘that’. The philosophical literature follows Franz Brentano’s adaptation of Thomist terminology in referring to all such states as intentional states. But there is another type of mental phenomena, which lack intentionality and whose mental nature consists instead of some qualitative feature. These states include bodily sensations, such as aches and pains, and perceptual states, such as visual sensations of color and tactile sensations of heat and cold. And these states all exhibit some mental quality or another, such as the mental quality distinctive of pain or the mental quality of red or blue.1 And even theorists who acknowledge that intentional states can and do occur without being conscious have sometimes insisted that qualitative states cannot. There is, according to these theorists, nothing to a state’s being qualitative or exhibiting some mental quality unless that state is conscious – unless it is, as we might metaphorically say, “lighted up”. It’s striking that Freud himself seems to have adopted this double standard toward the two types of mental state. In his metapsychological paper, “The Unconscious”, for example, he writes that “all the categories which we employ to describe conscious mental acts, such as ideas, purposes, resolutions, and so forth, can be applied to [unconscious mental occurrences]” (Freud 1915e, p. 168). But he seems here to have in..
Rosenthal, David (2004). Varieties of higher-order theory. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 16 | Google)
Rosenthal, David M. (1990). Why are verbally expressed thoughts conscious? Bielefeld Report.   (Cited by 10 | Annotation | Google)
Rowlands, Mark (2001). Consciousness and higher-order thoughts. Mind and Language 16 (3):290-310.   (Cited by 7 | Google | More links)
Saha, Sukharanjan (2003). Inner sense and 'higher order consciousness': An indian perspective. In Perspectives on Consciousness. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.   (Google)
Saidel, Eric (1999). Consciousness without awareness? Psyche 5 (16).   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Sainsbury, Mark (1991). Is there higher-order vagueness? Philosophical Quarterly 41 (163):167-182.   (Google | More links)
Schroder, Jurgen (2001). Higher-order thought and naturalist accounts of consciousness. Journal Of Consciousness Studies 8 (11):27-46.   (Cited by 4 | Google)
Seager, William E. (2004). A cold look at HOT theory. In Rocco J. Gennaro (ed.), Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. John Benjamins.   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Seager, William E. (online). Dispositions and consciousness.   (Google | More links)
Seager, William E. (1994). Dretske on HOT theories of consciousness. Analysis 54 (4):270-76.   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Seager, William E. (1999). HOT theory: The mentalistic reduction of consciousness. In Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment. Routledge.   (Google)
Seager, William E. (ms). On dispositional HOT theories of consciousness.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Abstract: Higher Order Thought (HOT) theories of consciousness contend that consciousness can be explicated in terms of a relation between mental states of different
Shapiro, Lawrence A. (1999). Saving the phenomenal. Psyche 5 (35).   (Google)
Stoerig, Petra (1997). Phenomenal vision and apperception: Evidence from blindsight. Mind and Language 2 (2):224-37.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Stone, Jim (2001). What is it like to have an unconscious mental state? Philosophical Studies 104 (2):179-202.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Van Gulick, Robert (2000). Is the higher order of linguistic thought model of feeling adequate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):218-219.   (Google)
Abstract: Despite its explanatory value, the “higher order linguistic thought” model comes up short as an account of the felt aspect of motivational states
Veres, Zoltan (2008). Hiding within representation. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (9):131-135.   (Google)
Abstract: The 'playful affirmation', as Uziel Awret calls it, turns into a joyful affirmation of a theoretical challenge in a philosophical space set up by the many questions concerning the nature of consciousness. This is especially because the 'Las Meninas and the search for self-representation' (Awret, this volume) has been written in the spirit of an interplay between different modes and approaches, and also the different philosophical traditions, for dealing with the 'enigma' it presents. Bringing Velasquez's Las Meninas into the bigger picture of consciousness studies means a change in methodological perspective. Not only does it support the idea so dear to the tradition of phenomenology and philosophical hermeneutics of claiming back the truth value for the experience of work of art, but the author also succeeds in showing the relevance of this 'truth' to recent theoretical approaches to problems of representationalism and self-representation (like those of David Rosenthal, Robert Van Gulick, Bruce Mangan and Uriah Kriegel, for example)
Weisberg, Josh (1999). Active, thin, and HOT: An actualist response to Carruthers' dispositionalist HOT view. Psyche 5 (6).   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Abstract: Carruthers proposes that for a mental state to be conscious (state consciousness), it must be present in a
Weisberg, Josh (2008). Same old, same old: The same-order representational theory of consciousness and the division of phenomenal labor. Synthese 160 (2):161-181.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: The same-order representation theory of consciousness holds that conscious mental states represent both the world and themselves. This complex representational structure is posited in part to avoid a powerful objection to the more traditional higher-order representation theory of consciousness. The objection contends that the higher-order theory fails to account for the intimate relationship that holds between conscious states and our awareness of them--the theory 'divides the phenomenal labor' in an illicit fashion. This 'failure of intimacy' is exposed by the possibility of misrepresentation by higher-order states. In this paper, I argue that despite appearances, the same-order theory fails to avoid the objection, and thus also has troubles with intimacy
Weisberg, Josh (forthcoming). Misrepresenting consciousness. Philosophical Studies.   (Google)
Abstract: An important objection to the “higher-order” theory of consciousness turns on the possibility of higher-order misrepresentation. I argue that the objection fails because it illicitly assumes a characterization of consciousness explicitly rejected by HO theory. This in turn raises the question of what justifies an initial characterization of the data a theory of consciousness must explain. I distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic characterizations of consciousness, and I propose several desiderata a successful characterization of consciousness must meet. I then defend the particular extrinsic characterization of the HO theory, the “transitivity principle,” against its intrinsic rivals, thereby showing that the misrepresentation objection conclusively falls short
Weisberg, Josh (2001). The appearance of unity: A higher-order interpretation of the unity of consciousness. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of The.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: subjective appearance of unity, but respects unity can be adequately dealt with by the theory. I the actual and potential disunity of the brain will close by briefly considering some worries about processes that underwrite consciousness. eliminativism that often accompany discussions of unity and consciousness
Wright, Wayne (2005). Distracted drivers and unattended experience. Synthese 144 (1):41-68.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Consider the much-discussed case of the distracted driver, who is alleged to successfully navigate his car for miles despite being completely oblivious to his visual states. Perhaps he is deeply engrossed in the music playing over the radio or in philosophical reflection, and as a result he goes about unaware of the scene unfolding before him on the road. That the distracted driver has visual experiences of which he is not aware is a possibility that first-order representationalists (FOR) happily accept, but higher-order representationalists (HOR) steadfastly deny. HOR claims that perceptual states become conscious only as the object of higher-order states; perceptual states are not intrinsically conscious. According to HOR, since the driver is supposed to be completely distracted by other cognitive tasks, he cannot form higher-order representations of his visual states, with the result that those states are disqualified as experiences.1 HOR theories have come in two flavors, those that claim that the relevant higher-order representations are thought-like (HOT) and those that that rely on an inner perception-like mechanism that is directed toward one