Greg Detre
Thursday, 08 November, 2001
He argues for a distinction in our discussion of consciousness between �phenomenal� and �access� consciousness. �The two concepts of consciousness are phenomenal consciousness and access-consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is just experience; access consciousness is a kind of direct control. More exactly, a representation is access-conscious if it is actively poised for direct control of reasoning, reporting and action.�
For instance, blindsight patients have access consciousness without phenomenal consciousness. His example of phenomenal without access consciousness considers when we notice the fridge turn off and its low hum cease, and realise that the hum had been just below the level of (access) consciousness all that time.
He considers Searle�s two apparently contradictory statements about being unconscious while driving: �I think that appeal to the access/phenomenal distinction does serve to resolve the contradiction. The resolution is that Searle is presupposing that the Penfield petit mal seizure case loses phenomenal consciousness but still has sufficient access-consciousness to drive. But when he says that if he were unconscious of the road the car would crash, he is thinking of loss of both phenomenal and access consciousness � and it is the loss of the latter that would make the car crash.�
�Crick and Koch argue that V1 is not part of the neural
correlate of consciousness because V1 does not project to frontal cortex.
Visual consciousness is used in harnessing visual information for directly
guiding reasoning and decision making and direct projection to frontal cortex
is required for such a use. But what concept of consciousness are Crick and
Koch deploying? They face a dilemma. If they mean phenomenal consciousness,
then their argument is extremely interesting but unsound: their conclusion is unjustified.
If they mean access-consciousness, their argument is trivial.�
������
blindsight vs Anton�s syndrome???
does he suggest that they might be anatomically separated???
the Crick-Koch V1 hypothesis, and how does it relate to Goodale & Milner???