Never Mind the Gap: Neurophenomenology, Radical Enactivism, and the Hard Problem of Consciousness
Michael D. Kirchhoff & Daniel D. Hutto
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: Neurophenomenology, as formulated by Varela, offers an approach to the science of consciousness that seeks to get beyond the hard problem of consciousness. There is much to admire in the practical approach to the science of consciousness that neurophenomenology advocates. Problem: Even so, this article argues, the metaphysical commitments of the enterprise require a firmer foundation. The root problem is that neurophenomenology, as classically formulated by Varela, endorses a form of non-reductionism that, despite its ambitions, assumes rather than dissolves the hard problem of consciousness. We expose that neurophenomenology is not a natural solution to that problem. We defend the view that whatever else neurophenomenology might achieve, it cannot close the gap between the phenomenal and the physical if there is no such gap to close. Method: Building on radical enactive and embodied approaches to cognitive science that deny that the phenomenal and the physical are metaphysically distinct, this article shows that the only way to deal properly with the hard problem is by denying the metaphysical distinction between the physical and the phenomenal that gives the hard problem life. Results: This article concludes by discussing how neurophenomenology might be reformulated under the auspices of a radically enactive and embodied account of cognition. That is, only by denying that there are two distinct phenomena - the physical and the phenomenal - can the neurophenomenological project get on with addressing its pragmatic problems of showing how neuroscientists may be guided by first-person data in their analysis of third-person experimental data, and vice versa. Implications: The topic addressed in this article is of direct value to consciousness studies in general and specifically for the project of neurophenomenology. If the neurophenomenological project is to deal with the hard problem, it must denude itself of its non-reductionist background assumption and embrace a strict identity thesis. Constructivist content: Radical enactive and embodied approaches to mind and consciousness adopt a view of consciousness as a dynamic activity - something an organism enacts in ongoing engagement with its environment. These approaches therefore share with constructivist approaches an action-based view of mind.
Key words: Consciousness, radical enactivism, neurophenomenology, hard problem of consciousness.
Citation
Kirchhoff M. D. & Hutto D. D. (2016) Never mind the gap: Neurophenomenology, radical enactivism, and the hard problem of consciousness. Constructivist Foundations 11(2): 346–353. http://constructivist.info/11/2/346
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Bayne T. (2004) Closing the gap? Some questions for neurophenomenology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 349–364.
http://cepa.info/2260
Beaton M. (2009) An analysis of qualitative feel as the introspectible subjective aspect of a space of reasons. D.Phil. thesis. University of Sussex, Brighton.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Chalmers D. (2002) Consciousness and its place in nature. In: Chalmers D. (ed.) Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 247–272.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Clark A. (2003) Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Descola P. (2013) Beyond nature and culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Flanagan O. (1992) Consciousness reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Flanagan O. (1993) Consciousness reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (2003) On constructing a reality. In: Foerster H. von, Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. Springer, New York: 211–227. Originally published in 1973.
http://cepa.info/1278
Froese T. (2014) Review of “Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content” by Daniel D. Hutto and Erik Myin. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 35(1–2): 71–82.
http://cepa.info/2273
Gallagher S. (2007) Neurophilosophy and neurophenomenology. In: Embree L. & Nenon T. (eds.) Phenomenology 2005. Volume 5. Zeta Press, Bucharest: 293–316.
http://cepa.info/2474
González X. (2013) La auto-producción de la subjetividad: autopoiesis y cognición corporizada de alto nivel [The self-production of subjectivity: Autopoiesis and high-level cognition]. In: Razeto P. & Ramos R. (2013) Autopoiesis un concepto vivo. Colección ciencias estructurales. Universitas Nueva civilización, Santiago: 95–118.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hegel G. W. F. (1977) Phenomenology of spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller with analysis of the text and foreword by J. N. Findlay. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hutto D. D. (2015) Overly enactive imagination? Radically re-imagining imagination. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 53: 68–89.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Jackson F. (1982) Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly 32: 127–136.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kirchhoff M. D. (2015) Extended cognition & the causal-constitutive fallacy: In search for a diachronic and dynamical conception of constitution. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90(2): 320–360.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lutz A. & Thompson E. (2003) Neurophenomenology: Integrating subjective experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10(9–10): 31–52.
http://cepa.info/2363
Lutz A. (2002) Toward a neurophenomenology of generative passages: A first empirical case study. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1: 133–167.
http://cepa.info/2398
Marbach E. (1993) Mental representation and consciousness: Towards a phenomenological theory of representation and reference. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Merleau-Ponty M. (1962) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Originally published in French as Merleau-Ponty M. (1945) Phénoménologie de la perception. Callimard, Paris.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Raab T. & Eder T. (2015) Selbstbeobachtung: Oswald Wieners Denkpsychologie. Suhrkamp, Berlin.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rössler O. E. (1998) Endophysics: The world as an interface. World Scientific, Singapore.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rossmanith N. & Reddy V. (2016) Structure and openness in the development of self in infancy. Journal of Consciousness Studies 23(1–2): 237–257.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson E. (2004) Life and mind: From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology. A tribute to Francisco Varela. Phenomenology and the cognitive Sciences 3(4): 381–398.
http://cepa.info/1137
Varela F. J. (1992) Autopoiesis and a biology of intentionality. In: McMullin B. (ed.) Proceedings of a workshop on “Autopoiesis and Perception.” Dublin City University, Dublin: 4–14.
http://cepa.info/1274
Varela F. J. (1999) The specious present: The neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In: Petitot J., Varela F. J., Pachoud B. & Roy J. M. (eds.) Naturalizing phenomenology. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA: 266–314.
http://cepa.info/2081
Vörös S. (2014) The Uroboros of Consciousness: Between the Naturalisation of Phenomenology and the Phenomenologisation of Nature. Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 96–104.
http://cepa.info/1173
Zahavi D. (2003) Intentionality and phenomenality: A phenomenological take on the hard problem. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29(Supplement): 63–92.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Zahavi D. (2013) Naturalized phenomenology: A desideratum or a category mistake? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 72: 23–42.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.