Abstract
A tacit assumption in the field of consciousness studies is that the more empirical evidence a theory can explain, the better it fares when weighed against competitors. If one wants to take seriously the potential for empirical evidence to move forward debates in consciousness studies, there is a need to gather, organize, validate, and compare evidence. We present an inference to the best explanation (IBE) process on the basis of empirical support that is applicable in debates between competing theories of consciousness. Our proposed IBE process consists in four steps: Assimilate, Compile, Validate, and Compare. Until now, the vast majority of the work in the field has consisted in gathering empirical evidence for theories i.e., the assimilation step. To illustrate the feasibility of our proposed IBE process, and what it may look like when applied in practice, we deliver a complete collection (the compilation step) of empirical support for the distinction between A-Consciousness and P-Consciousness and the overflow hypothesis. Finally, we offer an example of the validation step, by scrutinizing the interpretation of aphantasics’ performance on retro-cue paradigms offered in the literature in support of the overflow hypothesis. The compilation we deliver here is the first effort in the IBE process, the end result of which — hopefully — will be the ability of the research community to carry out side-by-side comparisons of theories and the empirical phenomena they claim to explain, i.e., the comparison step.
Highlights
Through time, philosophy has offered numerous different ways to conceive of consciousness
In some classical literature on inference to the best explanation (Harman, 1965; see explication in Campos, 2011), every intermediate step must be true, to not undermine the final inference. This need not necessarily be the case in here, because it is possible that one or more pieces of empirical support may be rejected without this undermining the whole IBE process. In addition to these reasons, because a concrete and feasible process to follow in the domain of empirically minded consciousness studies is clearly preferable, we here operate with a rational reconstruction of the process of inferring to the best explanation when it is applied to competing theories of con sciousness based on their respective empirical support1
As suggested in the introduction, the focus on assimilation of empirical support across the field is indicative of the consensus that empirical evidence has a special role in the debate, which is the premise of the IBE project
Summary
Philosophy has offered numerous different ways to conceive of consciousness. If you can show that a theory of consciousness can account for a wider range of empirical data than its competitors, you can make the case that it is the best explanation overall This sentiment is shared by Ned Block, who is central to what follows below. In addition to these reasons, because a concrete and feasible process to follow in the domain of empirically minded consciousness studies is clearly preferable, we here operate with a rational reconstruction of the process of inferring to the best explanation when it is applied to competing theories of con sciousness based on their respective empirical support. The process consists in four discrete steps, which we will turn to
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
