Is vision for action unconscious?

Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Empirical work and philosophical analysis have led to widespread acceptance that vision for action, served by the cortical dorsal stream, is unconscious. I argue that the empirical argument for this claim is unsound. That argument relies on subjects’ introspective reports. Yet on biological grounds, in light of the theory of primate cortical vision, introspection has no access to dorsal stream mediated visual states. It is thus wrongly assumed that introspective reports speak to absent phenomenology in the dorsal stream. In light of this, I consider a different conception of consciousness’s relation to agency in terms of access. While theoretical reasons suggest that the inaccessibility of the dorsal stream to conceptual report is evidence that it is unconscious, this position begs important questions. I propose a broader notion of access in respect of the guidance of intentional agency and not, narrowly, conceptual report (Note: this paper contradicts my earlier paper, "The Case for Zombie Agency").
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-03-22
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Consciousness Cannot Be Separated From Function.Cohen, Michael A. & Dennett, Daniel C.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
53 ( #39,352 of 47,315 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
53 ( #14,552 of 47,315 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.