Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 1–2, pp 221–230

Heterophenomenology versus critical phenomenology

Article

Abstract

Dennett’s heterophenomenology and the critical phenomenology that I outline may be thought of as competing accounts of a cautious approach to phenomenal description and method. One can be critical or cautious about how well or how reliably a subject can communicate his or her subjective experience in experimental settings, without for a moment doubting their existence or claiming them to be something completely different to how they seem. Given this, Dennett’s heterophenomenology with its accompanying “qualia denial” looks like nothing more than an attempt to shore up his counterintuitive, eliminativist philosophy of mind.

Key words

introspection heterophenomenology critical phenomenology qualia 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A materialist theory of mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Boring, E. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York, NY: Century.Google Scholar
  3. Chappell, V. C. (Ed.) (1962). Philosophy of mind. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Dennett, D. C. (1994). Instead of qualia. In A. Revonsuo & M. Kampinnen (Eds.), Consciousness in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Dennett, D. (2001). The fantasy of first-person science. http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/pubpage.htm.
  7. Dennett, D. (2003). Who’s on first? Heterophenomenology explained. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 10–30.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Jack, A., & Roepstorff, A. (Eds.) (2003). Trusting the subject? Volume 1: The use of introspective evidence in cognitive science. Exeter, UK: Imprint.Google Scholar
  10. Jack, A., & Roepstorff, A. (Eds.) (2004). Trusting the subject? Volume 2: The use of introspective evidence in cognitive science. Exeter, UK: Imprint.Google Scholar
  11. Külpe, O. (1901). Outlines of psychology. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  12. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  13. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, S. M., Brown, H. O., & Toman, J. E. P. (1947). The lack of cerebral effects of d-tubocurarine. Anesthesiology, 8, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Titchener, E. B. (1915). A beginner’s psychology. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  16. Varela, F., & Shear, J. (1999). First person approaches to the study of consciousness. Exeter, UK: Imprint.Google Scholar
  17. Velmans, M. (1991a). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 651–669.Google Scholar
  18. Velmans, M. (1991b). Consciousness from a first-person perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 702–726.Google Scholar
  19. Velmans, M. (1999). Intersubjective science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2/3), 299–306.Google Scholar
  20. Velmans, M. (2000a). Understanding consciousness. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Velmans, M. (2000b). A psychologist’s map of consciousness studies. In M. Velmans (Ed.), Investigating phenomenal consciousness: New methodologies and maps (pp. 333–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Velmans, M. (2001). Heterophenomenology versus critical phenomenology: A dialogue with Dan Dennett. On-line debate at http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/17/95 /index.html.
  23. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGoldsmiths College, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations