Abstract
In this paper I compare heterophenomenology and neurophenomenology as methodologies for a science of consciousness. I give introductions of heterophenomenology (HP) and neurophenomenology (NP), respectively. Than I briefly relate HP and NP to mainstream cognitive science methodology and to each other. I claim that although HP and NP are indeed different methodologies for studying consciousness, in practice it will be very hard to decide on which methodology we should prefer since, given the research that is currently available, both methodologies seem to allow for the same range of experiments. Given the fact that HP excludes the validity of conclusions drawn by means of NP, it seems that we do have to choose between them, nonetheless. My goal is, however, to see whether there currently are reasons for rejecting HP or NP as unreliable or invalid across the board. I conclude that for the time being we had better keep both HP and NP in the running.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
