Consciousness, accessibility, and the mesh between psychology and neuroscience

2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 481-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ned Block

AbstractHow can we disentangle the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness from the neural machinery of the cognitive access that underlies reports of phenomenal consciousness? We see the problem in stark form if we ask how we can tell whether representations inside a Fodorian module are phenomenally conscious. The methodology would seem straightforward: Find the neural natural kinds that are the basis of phenomenal consciousness in clear cases – when subjects are completely confident and we have no reason to doubt their authority – and look to see whether those neural natural kinds exist within Fodorian modules. But a puzzle arises: Do we include the machinery underlying reportability within the neural natural kinds of the clear cases? If the answer is “Yes,” then there can be no phenomenally conscious representations in Fodorian modules. But how can we know if the answer is “Yes”? The suggested methodology requires an answer to the question it was supposed to answer! This target article argues for an abstract solution to the problem and exhibits a source of empirical data that is relevant, data that show that in a certain sense phenomenal consciousness overflows cognitive accessibility. I argue that we can find a neural realizer of this overflow if we assume that the neural basis of phenomenal consciousness does not include the neural basis of cognitive accessibility and that this assumption is justified (other things being equal) by the explanations it allows.

2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 520-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Kevin O'Regan ◽  
Erik Myin

AbstractThe target article appeals to recent empirical data to support the idea that there is more to phenomenality than is available to access consciousness. However, this claim is based on an unwarranted assumption, namely, that some kind of cortical processing must be phenomenal. The article also considerably weakens Block's original distinction between a truly nonfunctional phenomenal consciousness and a functional access consciousness. The new form of phenomenal consciousness seems to be a poor-man's cognitive access.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 506-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carroll E. Izard ◽  
Paul C. Quinn ◽  
Steven B. Most

AbstractBlock's target article makes a significant contribution toward sorting the neural bases of phenomenal consciousness from the neural systems that underlie cognitive access to it. However, data from developmental science suggest that cognitive access may be only one of several ways to access phenomenology. These data may also have implications for the visual-cognitive phenomena that Block uses to support his case.


2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1755) ◽  
pp. 20170346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Mogensen ◽  
Morten Overgaard

In the present communication, phenomenal consciousness, access consciousness and the closely related concept of working memory are presented in the context of a neurocognitive model—the REF (reorganization of elementary functions) framework. The REF framework is based on connectionist networks within which the ‘units’ are advanced processing modules called elementary functions (EFs). In this framework, the focus is on dynamically changeable ‘strategies’—based on reorganizations of the connectivity between EFs—rather than on the more traditional ‘cognitive functions’. The background for the REF framework and especially how the neural correlate of consciousness is understood within these models is summarized. According to the REF framework, phenomenal consciousness cannot ‘overflow’ availability of information for action. Phenomenal consciousness may, however, overflow working memory because working memory in the present context is seen as a surface phenomenon reflecting underlying dynamic strategies—influenced by both experience and situational factors. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Perceptual consciousness and cognitive access'.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 518-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lionel Naccache ◽  
Stanislas Dehaene

AbstractCan we ever experimentally disentangle phenomenal consciousness from the cognitive accessibility inherent to conscious reports? In this commentary, we suggest that (1) Block's notion of phenomenal consciousness remains intractably entangled with the need to obtain subjective reports about it; and (2) many experimental paradigms suggest that the intuitive notion of a rich but non-reportable phenomenal world is, to a large extent illusory – in a sense that requires clarification.


2018 ◽  
Vol 373 (1755) ◽  
pp. 20170347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Phillips

Is phenomenal consciousness constitutively related to cognitive access? Despite being a fundamental issue for any science of consciousness, its empirical study faces a severe methodological puzzle. Recent years have seen numerous attempts to address this puzzle, either in practice, by offering evidence for a positive or negative answer, or in principle, by proposing a framework for eventual resolution. The present paper critically considers these endeavours, including partial-report, metacognitive and no-report paradigms, as well as the theoretical proposal that we can make progress by studying phenomenal consciousness as a natural kind. It is argued that the methodological puzzle remains obdurately with us and that, for now, we must adopt an attitude of humility towards the phenomenal. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Perceptual consciousness and cognitive access’.


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 527-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tye

AbstractBlock tries to show that the results of the Sperling experiment lend support to the view that phenomenology outstrips cognitive accessibility. I argue that Block fails to make a compelling case for this general claim on the basis of the Sperling data.


2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Grush

The emulation theory of representation articulated in the target article is further explained and explored in this response to commentaries. Major topics include: the irrelevance of equilibrium-point and related models of motor control to the theory; clarification of the particular sense of “representation” which the emulation theory of representation is an account of; the relation between the emulation framework and Kalman filtering; and addressing the empirical data considered to be in conflict with the emulation theory. In addition, I discuss the further empirical support for the emulation theory provided by some commentators, as well as a number of suggested theoretical applications.


2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Gariépy ◽  
Steve W. C. Chang ◽  
Michael L. Platt

AbstractIn the target article, Schilbach et al. defend a “second-person neuroscience” perspective that focuses on the neural basis of social cognition during live, ongoing interactions between individuals. We argue that a second-person neuroscience would benefit from formal approaches borrowed from economics and behavioral ecology and that it should be extended to social interactions in nonhuman animals.


1995 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ned Block

AbstractConsciousness 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. The mark of access-consciousness, by contrast, is availability for use in reasoning and rationally guiding speech and action. These concepts are often partly or totally conflated, with bad results. This target article uses as an example a form of reasoning about a function of “consciousness” based on the phenomenon of blindsight. Some information about stimuli in the blind field is represented in the brains of blindsight patients, as shown by their correct “guesses.” They cannot harness this information in the service of action, however, and this is said to show that a function of phenomenal consciousness is somehow to enable information represented in the brain to guide action. But stimuli in the blind field arebothaccess-unconscious and phenomenally unconscious. The fallacy is: an obvious function of the machinery of accessconsciousness is illicitly transferred to phenomenal consciousness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document