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

1.6d. Knowledge of Consciousness (Knowledge of Consciousness on PhilPapers)

See also:
Alter, Torin (2009). Does the ignorance hypothesis undermine the conceivability and knowledge arguments? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (3):756-765.   (Google)
Alter, Torin (web). Phenomenal knowledge without experience. In E. Wright (ed.), The Case for Qualia. MIT Press.   (Google)
Abstract: Phenomenal knowledge usually comes from experience. But it
need not. For example, one could know what it’s like to see red without
seeing red—indeed, without having any color experiences. Daniel Dennett
(2007) and Pete Mandik (forthcoming) argue that this and related
considerations undermine the knowledge argument against physicalism.
If they are right, then this is not only a problem for anti‐physicalists. Their
argument threatens to undermine any version of phenomenal realism—
the view that there are phenomenal properties, or qualia, that are not
conceptually reducible to physical or functional properties. I will argue
that this threat is illusory. Explaining why will clarify what is and is not at issue in discussions of the knowledge argument and phenomenal realism. This will strengthen the case for physically and functionally irreducible qualia.
Aydede, Murat (2003). Is introspection inferential? In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.   (Cited by 10 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Suppose there is a red ball against a uniformly gray background moving toward my left. I am seeing the moving red ball. I am having a visual experience that carries the information (among other things) that [the ball] is red.1 Now supposing that I have the concepts RED and SEEING, and all my other cognitive (including introspective) mechanisms are intact and working normally, the job is to say exactly how I do come to know that I am seeing [the ball] as red. How do I come to know, as I shall sometimes put it, that I am seeing red?
Balog, Katalin (forthcoming). Acquaintance and the mind-body problem. In Christopher Hill & Simone Gozzano (eds.), Identity Theory. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Abstract: In this paper I begin to develop an account of the acquaintance that each of us has with our own conscious states and processes. The account is a speculative proposal about human mental architecture and specifically about the nature of the concepts via which we think in first personish ways about our qualia. In a certain sense my account is neutral between physicalist and dualist accounts of consciousness. As will be clear, a dualist could adopt the account I will offer while maintaining that qualia themselves are non-physical properties. In this case the non-physical nature of qualia may play no role in accounting for the features of acquaintance. But although the account could be used by a dualist, its existence provides enormous support for physicalism. In particular it provides the makings of a positive refutation (i.e., a refutation by construction) of the conceivability arguments and the Mary argument for dualism.
Baruss, Imants (1998). Beliefs about consciousness and reality of participants at 'tucson II'. Journal of Consciousness Studies 5 (4):483-496.   (Google)
Bayne, Timothy J. (2001). Chalmers on the justification of phenomenal judgments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2):407-19.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Bayer, Benjamin (ms). From folk psychology to folk epistemology: The status of radical simulation.   (Google)
Abstract: In this paper I consider one of the leading philosophic-psychological theories of “folk psychology,” the simulation theory of Robert Gordon. According to Gordon, we attribute mental states to others not by representing those states or by applying the generalizations of theory, but by imagining ourselves in the position of a target to be interpreted and exploiting our own decision-making skills to make assertions which we then attribute to others as ‘beliefs’. I describe a leading objections to Gordon’s theory—the problem of adjustment—and show how a charitably interpreted Gordon could answer this objection. I conclude, however, that the best case for Gordon’s position still runs into a new problem concerning the epistemological presuppositions of belief-attribution. This suggests a new account of folk psychological explanation that draws on children’s basic folk epistemological knowledge. Identifying this new alternative helps undermine the simplicity of a theory based on simulation-based explanation
Bouratinos, E. (2003). A pre-epistemology of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (12):38-41.   (Google)
Bradley, Raymond D. (1964). Avowals of immediate experience. Mind 73 (April):186-203.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Bradley, Francis H. (1909). On our knowledge of immediate experience. Mind 18 (69):40-64.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Bush, Wendell T. (1906). The privacy of consciousness. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 3 (2):42-45.   (Google | More links)
Carloye, Jack C. (1991). Consciousness and introspective knowledge. Methodology and Science 8:8-22.   (Google)
Chalmers, David J. (1996). The paradox of phenomenal judgment. In The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press.   (Annotation | Google)
Clark, Thomas W. (2005). Killing the observer. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (4-5):38-59.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Phenomenal consciousness is often thought to involve a first-person perspective or point of view which makes available to the subject categorically private, first-person facts about experience, facts that are irreducible to third-person physical, functional, or representational facts. This paper seeks to show that on a representational account of consciousness, we don't have an observational perspective on experience that gives access to such facts, although our representational limitations and the phenomenal structure of consciousness make it strongly seem that we do. Qualia seem intrinsic and functionally arbitrary, and thus categorically private, because they are first-order sensory representations that are not themselves directly represented. Further, the representational architecture that on this account instantiates conscious subjectivity helps to generate the intuition of observerhood, since the phenomenal subject may be construed as outside, not within, experience. Once the seemings of private phenomenal facts and the observing subject are discounted, we can understand consciousness as a certain variety of neurally instantiated, behaviour controlling content, that constituted by an integrated representation of the organism in the world. Neuroscientific research suggests that consciousness and its characteristic behavioural capacities are supported by widely distributed but highly integrated neural processes involving communication between multiple functional sub- systems in the brain. This 'global workspace' may be the brain's physical realization of the representational architecture that constitutes consciousness
Conee, Earl (1994). Phenomenal knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (2):136-150.   (Cited by 23 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Dennett, Daniel C. (2002). How could I be wrong? How wrong could I be? Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5):13-16.   (Cited by 14 | Google | More links)
Abstract: One of the striking, even amusing, spectacles to be enjoyed at the many workshops and conferences on consciousness these days is the breathtaking overconfidence with which laypeople hold forth about the nature of consciousness Btheir own in particular, but everybody =s by extrapolation. Everybody =s an expert on consciousness, it seems, and it doesn =t take any knowledge of experimental findings to secure the home truths these people enunciate with such conviction
Dilworth, John B. (2006). Perception, introspection, and functional consonance. Theoria 72 (4):299-318.   (Google)
Abstract: What is the relation between a perceptual experience of an object X as being red, and one's belief, if any, as to the nature of that experience? A traditional Cartesian view would be that, if indeed object X does seem to be red to oneself, then one's resulting introspective belief about it could only be a _conforming _belief, i.e., a belief that X perceptually seems to be _red _to oneself--rather than, for instance, a belief that X perceptually seems to be green to oneself instead. On such a Cartesian view, our introspective certainly about our own thoughts extends also to our perceptual experiences as to how things seem to be to us, so that our resulting introspective beliefs about our phenomenal states also count as knowledge of them
Dretske, Fred (2003). How do you know you are not a zombie? In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.   (Cited by 19 | Google)
Dretske, Fred (1999). The mind's awareness of itself. Philosophical Studies 95 (1-2):103-24.   (Cited by 35 | Google | More links)
Eilan, Naomi M. & Roessler, Johannes (2003). Agency and self-awareness: Mechanisms and epistemology. In Johannes Roessler (ed.), Agency and Self-Awareness: Issues in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Fischer, Eugen (2001). Discrimination: A challenge to first-person authority? Philosophical Investigations 24 (4):330-346.   (Google)
Francescotti, Robert M. (2000). Introspection and qualia: A defense of infallibility. Communication and Cognition 33 (3-4):161-173.   (Google)
Gertler, Brie (2003). How to draw ontological conclusions from introspective data. In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.   (Google)
Gertler, Brie (2001). Introspecting phenomenal states. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):305-28.   (Cited by 15 | Google | More links)
Hellie, Benj (2009). Acquaintance. In Tim Bayne, Axel Cleeremans & Patrick Wilken (eds.), Oxford Companion to Consciousness. Oxford University Press.   (Google)
Hellie, Benj (2010). An externalist's guide to inner experience. In Bence Nanay (ed.), Perceiving the World. Oxford University Press.   (Google)
Abstract: Let's be externalists about perceptual consciousness and think the form of veridical perceptual consciousness includes /seeing this or that mind-independent particular and its colors/. Let's also take internalism seriously, granting that spectral inversion and hallucination can be "phenomenally" the same as normal seeing. Then perceptual consciousness and phenomenality are different, and so we need to say how they are related. It's complicated!

Phenomenal sameness is (against all odds) /reflective indiscriminability/. I build a "displaced perception" account of reflection on which indiscriminability stems from shared "qualia". Qualia are compatible with direct realism: while they generate an explanatory gap (and colors do not), so does /seeing/; qualia are excluded from perceptual consciousness by its "transparency"; instead, qualia are aspects of thought about the perceived environment.

The asymmetry between my treatments of color and seeing is grounded in the asymmetry between ignorance and error: while inversion shows that normal subjects are ignorant of the natures of the colors, hallucination shows not that perceivers are ignorant of the nature of seeing but that hallucinators are prone to error about their condition. Past literature has treated inversion and hallucination as on a par: externalists see error in both cases, while internalists see mutual ignorance. My account is so complicated because plausible results require mixing it up.
Hellie, Benj (2007). Factive phenomenal characters. Philosophical Perspectives 21 (1):259--306.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: This paper expands on the discussion in the first section of 'Beyond phenomenal naivete'. Let Phenomenal Naivete be understood as the doctrine that some phenomenal characters of veridical experiences are factive properties concerning the external world. Here I present in detail a phenomenological case for Phenomenal Naivete and an argument from hallucination against it. I believe that these arguments show the concept of phenomenal character to be defective, overdetermined by its metaphysical and epistemological commitments together with the world. This does not establish a gappish eliminativism, but a gluttish pluralism, on which there are many imperfect deservers of the name 'phenomenal character'. Different projects in the philosophy of mind -- phenomenology, philosophy of conscious, metaphysics and epistemology of perception -- are concerned with different deservers of the name.
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".
Hellie, Benj (2005). Noise and perceptual indiscriminability. Mind 114 (455):481-508.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Perception represents colors inexactly. This inexactness results from phenomenally manifest noise, and results in apparent violations of the transitivity of perceptual indiscriminability. Whether these violations are genuine depends on what is meant by 'transitivity of perceptual indiscriminability'.
Hellie, Benj (forthcoming). The multidisjunctive conception of hallucination. In Fiona Mapherson (ed.), Hallucination. MIT Press.   (Google)
Abstract: Direct realists think that we can't get a clear view the nature of /hallucinating a white picket fence/: is it /representing a white picket fence/? is it /sensing white-picket-fencily/? is it /being acquainted with a white' picketed' sense-datum/? These are all epistemic possibilities for a single experience; hence they are all metaphysical possibilities for various experiences. Hallucination itself is a disjunctive or "multidisjunctive" category. I rebut MGF Martin's argument from statistical explanation for his "epistemic" conception of hallucination, but his view embeds in my view as a "reference-fixer".
Hill, Christopher S. (1988). Introspective awareness of sensations. Topoi 7 (March):11-24.   (Google | More links)
Hofmann, Frank (2009). Introspective self-knowledge of experience and evidence. Erkenntnis 71 (1).   (Google)
Abstract: The paper attempts to give an account of the introspective self-knowledge of our own experiences which is in line with representationalism about phenomenal consciousness and the transparency of experience. A two-step model is presented. First, a demonstrative thought of the form ‚I am experiencing this’ is formed which refers to what one experiences, by means of attention. Plausibly, this thought is knowledge, since safe. Second, a non-demonstrative thought of the form ‚I am experiencing a pain’ occurs. This second self-ascription is justified inferentially, on the basis of the first, demonstrative thought. Thus, an account of introspective experiential self-knowledge can be developed which is richer and more adequate to the phenomena than pure reliabilism and Dretske’s displaced perception model. There is really such a thing as introspection, but no inner sense
Horgan, Terry; Tienson, John & Graham, George (2006). Internal-world skepticism and the self-presentational nature of phenomenal consciousness. In Uriah Kriegel & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness. MIT Press.   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Howell, Robert J. (2010). Subjectivity and the elusiveness of the self. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (3):pp. 459-483.   (Google | More links)
Imlay, Robert A. (1969). Immediate awareness. Dialogue 8 (September):228-42.   (Google)
Kirk, Robert E. (1971). Armstrong's analogue of introspection. Philosophical Quarterly 21 (April):158-62.   (Google | More links)
Kneale, William C. (1950). Experience and introspection. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 50:I.   (Cited by 2 | Google)
Horgan, Terry & Kriegel, Uriah (2007). Phenomenal epistemology: What is consciousness that we may know it so well? Philosophical Issues 17 (1):123-144.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: It has often been thought that our knowledge of ourselves is _different_ from, perhaps in some sense _better_ than, our knowledge of things other than ourselves. Indeed, there is a thriving research area in epistemology dedicated to seeking an account of self-knowledge that would articulate and explain its difference from, and superiority over, other knowledge. Such an account would thus illuminate the descriptive and normative difference between self-knowledge and other knowledge.<sup>1</sup> At the same time, self- knowledge has also encountered its share of skeptics – philosophers who refuse to accord it any descriptive, let alone normative, distinction. In this paper, we argue that there is at least one _species_ of self-knowledge that is different from, and better than, other knowledge. It is a specific kind of knowledge of one’s concurrent phenomenal experiences. Call knowledge of one’s own phenomenal experiences _phenomenal knowledge_. Our claim is that some (though not all) phenomenal knowledge is different from, and better than, non-phenomenal knowledge. In other
Langsam, Harold (2002). Consciousness, experience, and justification. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (1):1-28.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Leeds, Stephen (1993). Qualia, awareness, Sellars. Noûs 27 (3):303-330.   (Cited by 9 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Lehrer, Keith (2006). Consciousness, representation, and knowledge. In Uriah Kriegel & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness. MIT Press.   (Google)
Lemos, Ramon M. (1965). Immediacy, privacy, and ineffability. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 25 (June):500-515.   (Google | More links)
Levine, Joseph (2003). Knowing what it's like. In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Maund, J. Barry (1976). Awareness of sensory experience. Mind 85 (July):412-416.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1989). An examination of four objections to self-intimating states of consciousness. Journal of Mind and Behavior 10:63-116.   (Cited by 12 | Google)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1977). Consciousness: Consideration of an inferential hypothesis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 7 (April):29-39.   (Cited by 37 | Google | More links)
Natsoulas, Thomas (1988). Is any state of consciousness self-intimating? Journal of Mind and Behavior 9:167-203.   (Cited by 7 | Google)
Parsons, Kathryn P. (1970). Mistaking sensations. Philosophical Review 79 (April):201-213.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Robinson, William S. (1982). Causation, sensations, and knowledge. Mind 91 (October):524-40.   (Cited by 8 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Rosenthal, David M. (1995). Self-knowledge and Moore's paradox. Philosophical Studies 77 (2-3).   (Google)
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2000). How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of human echolocation. Philosophical Topics 28 (5-6):235-46.   (Cited by 12 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Researchers from the 1940's through the present have found that normal, sighted people can echolocate - that is, detect properties of silent objects by attending to sound reflected from them. We argue that echolocation is a normal part of our conscious, perceptual experience. Despite this, we argue that people are often grossly mistaken about their experience of echolocation. If so, echolocation provides a counterexample to the view that we cannot be seriously mistaken about our own current conscious experience
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2002). How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of visual imagery. Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (5):35-53.   (Cited by 35 | Google | More links)
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2007). No unchallengeable epistemic authority, of any sort, regarding our own conscious experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (1-2).   (Google | More links)
Abstract: Dennett argues that we can be mistaken about our own conscious experience. Despite this, he repeatedly asserts that we can or do have unchallengeable authority of some sort in our reports about that experience. This assertion takes three forms. First, Dennett compares our authority to the authority of an author over his fictional world. Unfortunately, that appears to involve denying that there are actual facts about experience that subjects may be truly or falsely reporting. Second, Dennett sometimes seems to say that even though we may be mistaken about what our conscious experience is, our reports about
Schick, Theodore W. (1992). The epistemic role of qualitative content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (2):383-93.   (Annotation | Google | More links)
Shear, Jonathan & Gallagher, Shaun (eds.) (1999). Models of the Self. Imprint Academic.   (Google)
Siewert, Charles (2001). Self-knowledge and phenomenal unity. Noûs 35 (4):542-68.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Smart, J. J. C. (1971). Reports of immediate experiences. Synthese 22 (May):346-359.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Sosa, Ernest (2003). Consciousness and self-knowledge. In Brie Gertler (ed.), Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge. Ashgate.   (Google)
Sprigge, Timothy L. S. (1981). Knowledge of subjectivity. Theoria to Theory 14 (June):313-25.   (Google)
Tibbetts, Paul E. (1972). Feigl on raw feels, the brain, and knowledge claims: Some problems regarding theoretical concepts. Dialectica 26:247-66.   (Google | More links)
van Gulick, Robert (2000). Inward and upward: Reflection, introspection, and self-awareness. Philosophical Topics 28:275-305.   (Cited by 19 | Google)
Wallraff, Charles F. (1953). On immediacy and the contemporary dogma of sense-certainty. Journal of Philosophy 50 (January):29-38.   (Google | More links)
Warner, Richard (1996). Facing ourselves: Incorrigibility and the mind-body problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3 (3):217-30.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Warner, Richard (1994). In defense of a dualism. In Richard Warner & Tadeusz Szubka (eds.), The Mind-Body Problem: A Guide to the Current Debate. Blackwell.   (Google)
White, Alan R. (1981). Knowledge, acquaintance, and awareness. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6:159-172.   (Google)