Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 10, pp 2447–2474 | Cite as

Experiencing organisms: from mineness to subject of experience

  • Tobias SchlichtEmail author


Many philosophers hold that phenomenally conscious experiences involve a sense of mineness, since experiences like pain or hunger are immediately presented as mine. What can be said about this mineness, and does acceptance of this feature commit us to the existence of a subject or self? If yes, how should we characterize this subject? This paper considers the possibility that, (1) to the extent that we accept this feature, it provides us with a minimal notion of a subject of experience, and that (2) the phenomenological subject of experience, as it is represented in conscious experience, is the organism. While many philosophers agree that the metaphysical subject of experience is the animal, this claim is much less widespread, maybe even counterintuitive. The argument for this claim alludes to the structure of phenomenal consciousness and to recent work in cognitive science concerning the embodied character of consciousness and cognition. To illustrate the problems of current controversies, not only several recent rejections of a subject of experience are critically discussed, but also Hume’s famous rejection of a subject is criticized making use of epistemological aspects from Kant’s philosophy of mind. The final section situates the present discussion in the context of recently popular predictive coding accounts of perception and perceptual experience.


Consciousness Subjective character Self Embodied cognitive science Kant Hume Predictive coding 


  1. Alsmith, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2012). Embodying the mind and representing the body. In A. Alsmith, & de F. de Vignemont (eds.), The body represented/embodied representation. Review of philosophy and psychology, Special issue, 3(1).Google Scholar
  2. Bayne, T. (2007). Conscious states and conscious creatures: Explanation in the scientific study of consciousness. Philosophical Perspectives (Philosophy of Mind), 21, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne, T. (2010). The unity of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanke, O., Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, N. (1997). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. In N. Block, G. Güzeldere, & O. Flanagan (Eds.), The nature of consciousness: Philosophical debates. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Block, N. (2002). Concepts of consciousness. In D. J. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind. Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Block, N. (2010). What was I thinking? Review of Antonio Damasio, Self comes to mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York Times Book Review, November 28, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane, T. (2000). The origins of qualia. In T. Crane & S. Patterson (Eds.), The history of the mind-body problem. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dainton, B. (2008). The phenomenal self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damasio, A. (2011). Self comes to mind. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  15. Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and Emotion in the making of consciousness. Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  16. De Preester, H. (2007). The deep bodily origins of the subjective perspective: Models and their problems. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(3), 604–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dehaene, S., Changeux, J.-P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(5), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back. The evolution of minds. Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  19. de Vignemont, F. (2011). A self for the body. Metaphilosophy, 20(3), 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Vignemont, F. (2014). A multimodal conception of bodily awareness. Mind, 123(492), 989–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the brain. Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  22. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Dolega, K., & Dewhurst, J. (2015). Curtain call at the cartesian theatre. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22, 109–128.Google Scholar
  24. Edelman, G., & Tononi, G. (2000). A universe of consciousness. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friston, K., & Frith, C. D. (2015). A duet for one. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frith, C. D. (2007). Making up the mind: How the brain creates our mental world. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanna, R., & Thompson, E. (2014). Neurophenomenology and the spontaneity of consciousness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 33(suppl. 1), 133–162.Google Scholar
  31. Hobson, J. A., & Friston, K. J. (2014). Consciousness, dreams, and inference: The cartesian theatre revisited. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(1–2), 6–32.Google Scholar
  32. Hohwy, J. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hume, D. (1739/1958). A treatise of human nature. In: L. A. Selby-Bigge (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hurley, S. (2001). Perception and action. Alternative views. Synthese, 291, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutto, D. D. (2008). Folk-psychological attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jackson, F. (2004). Representation and experience. In: H. Clapin, P. Staines, P. Slezak (Eds.), Representation in mind. Elsevier, pp. 107–124.Google Scholar
  37. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. (Transl. by P. Guyer, A. Wood). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kirchhoff, M. D., & Froese, T. (2017). Where there is life there is mind: In support of a strong life-mind continuity thesis. Entropy, 19(4), 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kriegel, U. (2009). Subjective consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Limanowski, J., & Blankenburg, F. (2013). Minimal self-models and the free energy principle. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.Google Scholar
  41. MacKenzie, M. (2010). Enacting the self: Buddhist and enactivist approaches to the emergence of the self. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Metzinger, T. (1995). Faster than thought. Holism, homogeneity and temporal coding. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious experience. Imprint Academic: Thorverton.Google Scholar
  45. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being no one. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Metzinger, T. (2011). The no-self alternative. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Moutoussis, M., Fearon, P., El-Deredy, W., Dolan, R., & Friston, K. J. (2014). Bayesian inferences about the self: A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 25(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagel, T. (1969). The boundaries of inner space. The Journal of Philosophy, 66(14), 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 883–917.Google Scholar
  52. Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2006). Mirrors in the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rosenthal, D. (2005). Consciousness and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schlicht, T. (2007). Erkenntnistheoretischer Dualismus. Paderborn: MentisGoogle Scholar
  56. Schlicht, T. (2008). Selbstgefühl. Damasios Stufentheorie des Bewusstseins und der Emotion. In: E. Düsing (Ed.), Geist und Psyche (pp. 337–369). Würzburg: Königshausen Neumann.Google Scholar
  57. Schlicht, T. (2015). Explaining subjective character. Representation, reflexivity or integration? Commentary on Kenneth Williford. In: T. Metzinger, J. Windt (Eds.), OpenMind.Google Scholar
  58. Schlicht, T. (2016). Kant and the problem of consciousness. In: S. Leach & J. Tartaglia (Eds.), Consciousness and the great philosophers. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Searle, J. R. (2001a). Rationality in action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Searle, J. R. (2001b). Free will as a problem in neurobiology. Philosophy, 76(298), 491–514.Google Scholar
  62. Searle, J. R. (2015). Seeing things as they are. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shoemaker, S. (1968). Self-reference and self-awareness. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(19), 555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Slors, M. V. P., & Jongepier, F. (2014). Mineness without minimal selves. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(7–8), 193–219.Google Scholar
  65. Strawson, G. (1997). The self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(5/6), 405–428.Google Scholar
  66. Swanson, L. R. (2016). The predictive processing paradigm has roots in Kant. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 10, 79. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00079.
  67. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Van Gulick, R. (2004). Higher-order global states. In R. Gennaro (Ed.), Higher-order theories of consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.Google Scholar
  70. Varela, F. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  71. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. Mass: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  72. Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Williford, K. (2015a). Representationalisms, subjective character and self-acquaintance. In T. Metzinger & J. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND. Frankfurt: Mind Group.Google Scholar
  74. Williford, K. (2015b). Individuation, integration, and the phenomenological subject. In T. Metzinger & J. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND. Frankfurt: Mind Group.Google Scholar
  75. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and selfhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Zahavi, D. (2014). Self and other. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zeki, S., & Bartels, A. (1998). The autonomy of the visual systems and the modularity of conscious vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 353(1377), 1911–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Philosophie IIRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations