Fenomenologia a projekt naturalizacji

[Phenomenology and the project of naturalization] In recent years more and more people have started talking about the necessity of reconciliating phenomenology with the project of naturalization. Is it possible to bridge the gap between phenomenological analyses and naturalistic models of consciousness? Is it possible to naturalize phenomenology? In their long introduction to the book Naturalizing Phenomenology published by Stanford University Press in 1999, the four co-editors, Jean Petitot, Francisco Varela, Bernard Pachoud, and Jean-Michel Roy set out to delineate what might be seen as a kind of manifesto for this new approach. An examination of this introduction is consequently a good starting point for a discussion of the issue

Consciousness, Self-consciousness, Selfhood:A reply to some critics

Review of Philosophy and Psychology has lately published a number of papers that in various ways take issue with and criticize my work on the link between consciousness, self-consciousness and selfhood. In the following contribution, I reply directly to this new set of objections and argue that while some of them highlight ambiguities in my (earlier) work that ought to be clarified, others can only be characterized as misreadings

Brain, Mind, World: Predictive coding, neo-Kantianism, and transcendental idealism

Recently, a number of neuroscientists and philosophers have taken the so-called predictive coding approach to support a form of radical neuro-representationalism, according to which the content of our conscious experiences is a neural construct, a brain-generated simulation. There is remarkable similarity between this account and ideas found in and developed by German neo-Kantians in the mid-nineteenth century. Some of the neo-Kantians eventually came to have doubts about the cogency and internal consistency of the representationalist framework they were operating within. In this paper, I will first argue that some of these concerns ought to be taken seriously by contemporary proponents of predictive coding. After having done so, I will turn to phenomenology. As we shall see, Husserl’s endorsement of transcendental idealism was partially motivated by his rejection of representationalism and phenomenalism and by his attempt to safeguard the objectivity of the world of experience. This confronts us with an intriguing question. Which position is best able to accommodate our natural inclination for realism: Contemporary neuro-representationalism or Husserl’s transcendental idealism? Can contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind profit from a closer engagement with the history of philosophy? There are many reasons why this question ought to be answered affirmatively. Fundamental reflections on, and analyses of, the mind-world relationship are not a new thing. and it would be counterproductive to ignore resources found in the tradition. Doing so might make one miss out on important insights that in the best of circumstances would end up being rediscovered decades or centuries later. In the following contribution, I would like to exemplify this assessment by arguing that there are interesting similarities between the predictive coding framework that is currently in vogue in cognitive neuroscience and ideas found in, and developed by, German neo-Kantians in the mid-nineteenth century. The point of this comparison will not simply be historical, however. As we shall see, some of the neo-Kantians eventually came to raise certain questions and harbour certain doubts about the cogency and internal consistency of the representationalist framework they were operating within. As I will argue, some of these concerns ought to be taken seriously by contemporary proponents of predictive coding. After having done so, I will turn to phenomenology. As we shall see, Husserl’s endorsement of transcendental idealism was partially motivated by his rejection of representationalism and phenomenalism and by his attempt to safeguard the objectivity of the world of experience. This confronts us with an intriguing question. Which position is best able to accommodate our natural inclination for realism: Contemporary neuro-representationalism or Husserl’s transcendental idealism?</p

INTENTIONNALITÉ ET EXPÉRIENCE

Since the publication of Chalmer’s influential work, The Conscious Mind (1996), it has been customary to divide the philosophical problems of consciousness into two groups. Whereas the so-called ‘hard problem’ of consciousness concerns the nature of phenomenal awareness and the first-person perspective, the ‘easy problems of consciousness’ mainly concern the notion of intentionality. But is it really possible to investigate intentionality thoroughly without taking the experiential dimension into account? And vice versa, is it possible to understand the nature of subjectivity and experience if we ignore intentionality, or do we not run the risk of thereby reinstating a Cartesian subject-world dualism that ignores everything captured by the phrase “being-in-the-world”? In my article, I will inquire whether phenomenal consciousness and intentionality are two sides of the same coin that cannot be separated without committing a fallacy of division.Seit der Veröffentlichung von Chalmers einflussreichem Werk The Conscious Mind (1996) war es üblich, die philosophischen Probleme des Bewusstseins in zwei Gruppen zu teilen. Während sich das sogenannte „schwere Problem des Bewusstseins“ auf die Natur des phänomenalen Bewusstseins und die Perspektive der ersten Person bezieht, befasst sich das „leichte Problem des Bewusstseins“ vor allem mit dem Begriff der Intentionalität. Doch es stellt sich die Frage, ob es tatsächlich möglich ist, Intentionalität eingehend zu erforschen, ohne dabei die erfahrungsbezogenen Dimensionen zu berücksichtigen? Und vice versa, ist es möglich, die Natur der Subjektivität und der Erfahrung zu verstehen, wenn man die Intentionalität ignoriert, ohne sich dem Risiko auszusetzen, den cartesianischen Dualismus von „Subjekt“ und „Welt“ wieder ins Leben zu rufen, das alles ignoriert, was mit dem „In-der-Welt-sein“-Syntagma umschrieben ist? In meinem Artikel untersuche ich, ob das phänomenale Bewusstsein und die Intentionalität nicht zwei Seiten einer und derselben Medaille sind, die nicht zertrennt werden können, ohne dass bei der Teilung ein Fehler begangen wird.Depui la parution, en 1996, de l’ouvrage influent de Chalmer The Conscious Mind, on divise habituellement les problèmes philosophiques de la conscience en deux groupes. Tandis que les problèmes dits «ardus» concernent la nature de la conscience phénoménale et la perspective de la première personne, les problèmes «faciles» concernent principalement la notion d’intentionnalité. Or, est-il vraiment possible d’étudier l’intentionnalité à fond sans prendre en considération la dimension expériencielle ? Et vice versa, est-il possible de comprendre la nature de la subjectivité et de l’expérience sans tenir compte de l’intentionnalité, ou bien ne court-on pas le risque de reconstituer ainsi un dualisme cartésien sujet-monde, qui ignore tout ce qu’implique le syntagme «être-dans-le-monde» ? Dans mon article, je me pencherai sur la question de savoir si la conscience phénomenale et l’intentionnalité constituent en fait deux faces d’une même médaille, que l’on ne peut séparer sans commettre une erreur de division

Collective intentionality and plural pre-reflective self-awareness

In several recent texts, Hans Bernhard Schmid has argued that a proper understanding of collective intentionality and we‐identity requires a convincing account of the “sense of ‘us’” and that headway can be made regarding the latter by drawing on classical theories of self‐awareness (Schmid 2009, 2014a, 2014b). More specifically, Schmid argues that the “sense of ‘us’” amounts to a form of plural pre‐reflective self‐awareness, and as he writes, “Plural pre‐reflective self‐awareness plays the same role in the constitution of a common mind that singular pre‐reflective self‐awareness plays in the individual mind” (Schmid 2014a, 7). At the same time, however, Schmid also acknowledges that “there are important differences to consider,” in “spite of the striking similarities between the plural and the singular mind” (Schmid 2014a, 7). The aim of the following contribution is to assess these claims. How helpful is the appeal to pre‐reflective self‐awareness, and might the differences between the singular and the plural case ultimately overshadow their similarities