Advertisement

The identity of experiences and the identity of the subject

  • Donnchadh O’ConaillEmail author
Article
First Online:
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Barry Dainton has developed a sophisticated version of the bundle theory of the subject of experiences. I shall focus on three claims Dainton makes: the identity-conditions of subjects can be specified in terms of capacities to produce experiences; the identity-conditions of token capacities are not determined by their subjects; and a subject is nothing over and above a bundle of such capacities. I shall argue that Dainton’s key notion of co-consciousness, a primitive relation of experienced togetherness, presupposes a subject common to each of the experiences which are experienced together. Therefore, co-consciousness cannot be used to state the identity-conditions of subjects in a non-circular manner. I shall also argue that none of the different options Dainton offers for specifying the identity-conditions of token experiential capacities independently of their subjects are successful. I shall then outline a way in which this can be done, but argue that it undermines the claim that a subject is nothing over and above a bundle of such capacities.

Keywords

Experience Subject C-system Experiential capacity Identity-conditions Co–consciousness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Martine Nida-Rümelin, Helen Steward, Tom McClelland, Jiri Benovsky and an anonymous referee for their comments on this paper. Thanks also to the audience at the EXRE colloquium in Fribourg.

References

  1. Bayne, T. (2010). The unity of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne, T., & Chalmers, D. J. (2003). What is the unity of consciousness? In A. Cleeremans (Ed.), The unity of consciousness: binding, integration and dissociation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benovsky, J. (2009). The self: A humean bundle and/or a cartesian substance? European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 5(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  4. Brook, A., & Raymont, P. (2017). The unity of consciousness. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/consciousness-unity/. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  5. Campbell, S. (2006). The conception of a person as a series of mental events. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(2), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chisholm, R. (1969). On the observability of the self. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 30(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dainton, B. (2000). Stream of consciousness: Unity and continuity in conscious experience. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dainton, B. (2004a). The self and the phenomenal. Ratio, 17(4), 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dainton, B. (2004b). Précis: Stream of consciousness. Psyche, 10, 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Dainton, B. (2008). The phenomenal self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dainton, B. (2015). From phenomenal selves to hyperselves. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 76, 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dainton, B. (2016). The sense of self. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 90, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dainton, B., & Bayne, T. (2005). Consciousness as a guide to personal persistence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83(4), 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grice, H. P. (1941). Personal identity. Mind, 50(200), 330–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heil, J. (2012). The universe as we find it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hume, D. (1978 [1740]). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kung, P. (2010). Imagining as a guide to possibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3), 620–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, E. J. (1996). Subjects of experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe, E. J. (2006). The four-category ontology: A metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. McKitrick, J. (2003). The bare possibility of bare dispositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66(2), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mumford, S. (2006). The ungrounded argument. Synthese, 149(3), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Conaill, D. (2018). What we conceive of when we conceive of zombies. In M. Guta (Ed.), Consciousness and the ontology of properties. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Roelofs, L. (2016). The unity of consciousness, within subjects and between subjects. Philosophical Studies, 173(12), 3199–3221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Snowdon, P. (2016). Dainton on subjects of experience. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 90(1), 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steward, H. (1997). The ontology of mind: Events, processes, and states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Van Gulick, R. (2014). Getting it all together—Phenomenal unity and the self. Analysis, 74(3), 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options