Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:26:12.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Token-identity, consciousness, and the connection principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Jürgen Schröder
Jürgen Schröder*
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche en Epistémologie 75005 Appliquée, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Searle's (1990) argument for the “Connection Principle” seems to rest on a confusion between ontological and epistemological claims. The potential consciousness of a mental state does not yield the same effect as does its actual consciousness, namely, the preservation of aspectual shape. Searle's distinction between the consciousness of an intentional object and that of a mental state, which is meant to counter the objection that deep unconscious rules cease to be deep once they become conscious, fails to do its appointed task.

Type
Article Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 18 , Special Issue 3: An International Journal of Current Research and Theory with Open Peer Commentary , September 1995 , pp. 615 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, N. (1990) Consciousness and accessibility. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4):596–98. [JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (1988) Prećis of The intentional stance . Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11:495–544. [MK]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1990) Searle's vision of psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4):608–10. [JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, D. (1990) Loose connections: Four problems in Searle's argument for the “connection principle.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:615–16. [JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, N. (1690/1959) An essay concerning human understanding, edited, collated, and annotated by Fraser, A. C. (in 2 vols.). Dover. [NN]Google Scholar
Natsoulas, T. (1989) An examination of four objections to self-intimating states of consciousness. Journal of Mind and Behavior 10:613–116. [NN]Google Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1987) What is it like to be a person? Mind & Language 2:220–41. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1989a) Unconscious sensations. Philosophical Psychology 2:129–41. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1989b) Propositional attitudes and consciousness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49:413–30. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1993a) The connection between intentionality and consciousness. In: Consciousness, ed. Davies, M. & Humphreys, G. W.. Blackwell. [NN]Google Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1993b) What is consciousness? Philosophy of Science 60:419–34. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1994a) Phenomena and representation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science X:527–47. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, N. (1994b) Subjectivity. In: The Blackwell companion to the mind, ed. Guttenplan, S.. Blackwell. [NN]Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1990) Somebody flew over Searle's ontological prison. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4):618–19. [JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1988) Representation and reality. MIT Press. [JS]Google Scholar
Rosenthal, D. M. (1990) On being accessible to consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:621–22. [JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1989) Consciousness, unconsciousness, and intentionality. Philosophical Topics 17:193–209. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1990) Consciousness, explanatory inversion, and cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:585–642. [NN, JS]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1993) Consciousness, attention and the connection principle. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:198–203. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoerig, P. (1987) Chromaticity and achromaticity: Evidence for a function differentiation in visual field defects. Brain 110:869–86. [NN]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoerig, P. & Cowey, A. (1989) Wavelength sensitivity in Hindsight. Nature 342:916–18. [NN]CrossRefGoogle Scholar