Topoi

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 67–79 | Cite as

Why are We Still Being Hornswoggled? Dissolving the Hard Problem of Consciousness

Article

Abstract

In this paper we try to diagnose one reason why the debate regarding the Hard Problem of consciousness inevitably leads to a stalemate: namely that the characterisation of consciousness assumed by the Hard Problem is unjustified and probably unjustifiable. Following Dennett (Consciousness explained. Penguin Books, New York, 1991, J Conscious Stud 3(1): 4–6, 1996, Cognition 79:221–237, 2001, J Conscious Stud 19(1):86, 2012) and Churchland (J Conscious Stud 3(5–6):402–408, 1996, Brainwise: studies in neurophilosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002), we argue that there is in fact no non-question begging argument for the claim that consciousness is a uniquely Hard Phenomenon. That is; there is no non-question begging argument for the claim that consciousness is necessarily in explicable in terms of the structure and function of mental states. Unfortunately the debate has not moved on because the majority of materialists feel the pull of the at least one of, what we call, the ‘key’ intuitions that supposedly support dualism and the existence of a Hard Phenomenon and so try to accommodate them rather than denying them. Although this a possible response to the intuitions it tends to mask the fact that there is in fact no argument for the existence of a Hard Phenomenon. So we end up participating in our own hornswoggling (Churchland in J Conscious Stud 3, (5–6):402–408, 1996) and chasing our tails trying to answer a question we should in fact ignore. We have no reason to think there is a Hard Problem of consciousness because we have no reason to think the Hard Phenomenon exists.

Keywords

Consciousness Hard problem Mary Zombies Bats Hornswoggle 

References

  1. Akins K (1993) What is in like to be boring and myopic. In: Dahlbom B (ed) Dennett and his critics: demystifying the mind. Wiley Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp 124–160Google Scholar
  2. Alter T, Walter S (2006) Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge: new essays on consciousness and physicalism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore S-J, Oakly D, Frith CD (2003) Delusions of alien control in the normal brain. Neuropsychologia 41:1058–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756Google Scholar
  5. Carruthers G (2012) The case for the comparator model as an explanation of the sense of agency and its breakdowns. Conscious Cogn 21(1):30–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers DJ (1995) Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud 2(3):200–219Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers DJ (1996) The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers DJ (1997) Moving forward on the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud 4(1):3–46Google Scholar
  9. Chalmers DJ (2002a) Consciousness and its place in nature. In: DJ Chalmers (ed) Philosophy of mind: classical and contemporary readings. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalmers DJ (2002b) Does conceivability entail possibility? In: Gendler T, Hawthorne J (eds) Conceivability and possibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 145–200Google Scholar
  11. Chalmers DJ, Bourget D (2010) The Philpapers survey. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=fine
  12. Churchland PS (1996) The hornswoggle problem. J Consciousness Studies 3(5–6):402–408Google Scholar
  13. Churchland P (2002) Brainwise: studies in neurophilosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark A (1993) Sensory qualities. Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. De Valois RL, De Valois KK (1993) A multi-stage color model. Vision Research 33(8):1053–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennett DC (1991) Consciousness explained. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennett DC (1995) Consciousness: more like fame than television. Munich Conference Volume. Retrieved from http://pp.kpnet.fi/seirioa/cdenn/concfame.htm
  18. Dennett DC (1996) Facing backwards on the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud 3(1):4–6Google Scholar
  19. Dennett DC (2001) Are we explaining consciousness yet? Cognition 79:221–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dennett DC (2012) The mystery of David Chalmers. J Conscious Stud 19(1):86Google Scholar
  21. Frith CD, Blakemore S-J, Wolpert DM (2000) Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 355:1771–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson F (1982) Epiphenomenal qualia. Philos Q 32I:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kripke SA (1972) Naming and necessity. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Mack A, Rock I (1998) In attentional blindness. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagel T (1974) What is it like to be a bat? Philos Rev 83:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Brien G, Opie J (1999) A connectionist theory of phenomenal experience. Behav Brain Sci 22:127–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palmer SE (1999) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwitzgebel E (2008) The unreliability of naive introspection. Philos Rev 117(2):245–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Gulick R (2004) So many ways of saying no to Mary. In: Ludlow P, Nagasawa Y, Stoljar D (eds) There’s something about Mary: essays on phenomenal consciousness and frank Jackson’s knowledge argument. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders, Level 3 Australian Hearing HubMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Department of Cognitive ScienceMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations