I Me Mine: on a Confusion Concerning the Subjective Character of Experience

In recent debates on phenomenal consciousness, a distinction is sometimes made, after Levine (2001) and Kriegel (2009), between the “qualitative character” of an experience, i.e. the specific way it feels to the subject (e.g. blueish or sweetish or pleasant), and its “subjective character”, i.e. the fact that there is anything at all that it feels like to her. I argue that much discussion of subjective character is affected by a conflation between three different notions. I start by disentangling the three notions in question, under the labels of “for-me-ness”, “me-ness” and “mineness”. Next, I argue that these notions are not equivalent; in particular, there is no conceptual implication from for-me-ness to me-ness or mineness. Empirical considerations based on clinical cases additionally suggest that the three notions may also correspond to different properties (although the claim of conceptual non-equivalence does not depend on this further point). The aim is clarificatory, cautionary but also critical: I examine four existing arguments from subjective character that are fuelled by an undifferentiated use of the three notions, and find them to be flawed for this reason

Epistemic Constraints on Autonomous Symbolic Representation in Natural and Artificial Agents

We set out to address, in the form of a survey, the fundamental constraints upon self-updating representation in cognitive agents of natural and artificial origin. The foundational epistemic problem encountered by such agents is that of distinguishing errors of representation from inappropriateness of the representational framework. Resolving this conceptual difficulty involves ensuring the empirical falsifiability of both the representational hypotheses and the entities so represented, while at the same time retaining their epistemic distinguishability. We shall thus argue that perception-action frameworks provide an appropriate basis for the development of an empirically meaningful criterion for validating perceptual categories. In this scenario, hypotheses about the agent’s world are defined in terms of environmental affordances (characterised in terms of the agent’s active capabilities). Agents with the capability to hierarchically-abstract this framework to a level consonant with performing syntactic manipulations and making deductive conjectures are consequently able to form an implicitly symbolic representation of the environment within which new, higher-level, modes of environment manipulation are implied (e.g. tool-use). This abstraction process is inherently open-ended, admitting a wide-range of possible representational hypotheses — only the form of the lowest-level of the hierarchy need be constrained a priori (being the minimally sufficient condition necessary for retention of the ability to falsify high-level hypotheses). In biological agents capable of autonomous cognitive-updating, we argue that the grounding of such a priori ‘bootstrap’ representational hypotheses is ensured via the process of natural selection

Evaluating the patient experience after implantation of a 0.4 mg sustained release dexamethasone intracanalicular insert (DextenzaTM): results of a qualitative survey

Joseph P Gira,1 Reginald Sampson,2 Steven M Silverstein,3 Thomas R Walters,4 Jamie Lynne Metzinger,5 Jonathan H Talamo5 1Ophthalmology Consultants, St Louis, MO, 2Montebello Medical Center, Inc., Montebello, CA, 3Silverstein Eye Centers, Kansas City, MO, 4Texan Eye, Austin, TX, 5Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Bedford, MA, USA Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the patient experience of sustained release dexamethasone intracanalicular insert (Dextenza™) following cataract surgery as part of a Phase III clinical trial program. Methods: This cross-sectional, qualitative evaluation involved individual interviews lasting approximately 45 minutes. Patients from four US investigational study sites who had previously received an insert were enrolled. There were no predesignated end points; this was a qualitative survey seeking a deeper understanding of patient experience. Results: Twenty-five patients were interviewed. Most patients (92%) reported the highest level of satisfaction grade with regard to overall product satisfaction. All patients described the insert as comfortable. Most patients (96%) described their overall experience with the insert as very convenient or extremely convenient. Twenty-two of 23 (96%) participants rated their experience with the insert as “very” or “extremely convenient”, compared to previous topical therapy, and 88% of patients stated that if they were to undergo cataract surgery again, they would request the insert. When asked if they would recommend the insert to family members or friends, 92% stated they would. The survey found that 84% of participants would be willing to pay more for the insert than for eye drop therapy. Conclusion: The dexamethasone insert was found by patients to be highly favorable with regard to overall satisfaction, convenience, and comfort. The insert was well received and largely preferred over topical therapy alternatives following surgery. More extensive evaluation of the patient experience is warranted, and future studies should help inform design of the next generation of sustained release drug delivery systems. Keywords: dexamethasone, cataract, sustained release, drug delivery, corticosteroid, Dextenz