Questions about the function of consciousness have long been central to discussions of consciousness in philosophy and psychology. Intuitively, consciousness has an important role to play in the control of many everyday behaviors. However, this view has recently come under attack. In particular, it is becoming increasingly common for scientists and philosophers to argue that a significant body of data emerging from cognitive science shows that conscious states are not involved in the control of behavior. According to these theorists, nonconscious (...) states control most everyday behaviors. Andy Clark does an admirable job of summarizing and defending the most important data thought to support this view. In this paper, I argue that the evidence available does not in fact threaten the view that conscious states play an important and intimate role in the control of much everyday behavior. I thereby defend a philosophically intuitive view about the functions of conscious states in action. (shrink)

The notion of consciousness, though central to contemporary philosophy of mind, is not well understood. This fact vitiates many recent attempts to develop a theory of consciousness. I aim to achieve a deeper understanding of consciousness by considering what it is that distinguishes conscious mental phenomena from non-conscious mental phenomena. I argue that, contrary to widespread opinion, consciousness is not a matter of a mental state's possessing phenomenality. Nor is it simply a matter of an organism's developing a mental representation, (...) first order or higher order. Rather, I argue, conscious mental phenomena are distinguished from non-conscious mental phenomena by their positioning within a cognitive system. In particular, the conscious mental phenomena are all and only those that are both immediately available to a cognitive mechanism with the function of controlling behavior in novel circumstances and capable of engaging controlled attention. Although my account invokes something like Michael Tye's notion of a mental state's being "poised" to affect certain cognitive mechanisms, it differs from Tye's theory on which mechanisms a state must be poised to affect in order to be conscious. My account is further distanced from Tye's and Dretske's first order representational theories in that it does not restrict the contents of conscious experiences to non-conceptual contents. Rather, I maintain that the contents of conscious experiences are quite diverse, including both conceptual and non-conceptual contents. My arguments, both positive and negative, draw upon a variety of considerations, including the rich body of theory and data emerging from recent work in cognitive science, phenomenological considerations, and more general philosophical considerations such as overall coherence, simplicity, and argumentative support. If correct, my views not only undermine recent arguments for or against the explicability or reducibility of consciousness in physicalist terms, they show that those arguments are not about consciousness at all. Rather, on the framework that emerges in the dissertation, these arguments are about either the contents of mental phenomena or their phenomenal character---neither of which is consciousness. (shrink)

What is the role of conscious visual experience in the control and guidance of human behaviour? According to some recent treatments, the role is surprisingly indirect. Conscious visual experience, on these accounts, serves the formation of plans and the selection of action types and targets, while the control of 'online' visually guided action proceeds via a quasi-independent non-conscious route. In response to such claims, critics such as (Wallhagen [2007], pp. 539-61) have suggested that the notions of control and guidance (...) invoked are unacceptably vague, and that that the image of 'zombie systems' guiding action fails to take account of the possibility that there is genuine but unconceptualized, unnoticed, and/or unreportable experience taking place and guiding or controlling the actions. I address both sets of concerns. I try to show that refining and clarifying the key notions of control and guidance leaves the original argument intact, as does the appeal to unconceptualized, unnoticed, or unreportable experiences. The exercise serves, however, to highlight an important complex of considerations concerning the relations between control, agency, and experience. Better understanding these relations is, I suggest, an important source of insights concerning the nature of phenomenal experience. (shrink)

Common sense suggests that visual consciousness is essential to skilled motor action, but Andy Clark—inspired by Milner and Goodale's dual visual systems theory—has appealed to a wide range of experimental dissociations to argue that such an assumption is false. Critics of Clark's argument contend that the content driving motor action is actually within subjects' experience, just not easily discovered. In this article, I argue that even if such content exists, it cannot be guiding motor action, since a review of current (...) visual neuroscience indicates that the visual brain areas producing conscious representations are distinct from those driving motor action. (shrink)