Detecting introspective errors about consciousness presents challenges that are widely supposed to be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. This is a problem for consciousness science because many central questions turn on when and to what extent we should trust subjects’ introspective reports. This has led some authors to suggest that we should abandon introspection as a source of evidence when constructing a science of consciousness. Others have concluded that central questions in consciousness science cannot be answered via empirical investigation. (...) I argue that on closer inspection, the challenges associated with detecting introspective errors can be overcome. I demonstrate how natural kind reasoning—the iterative application of inference to the best explanation to home in on and leverage regularities in nature—can allow us to detect introspective errors even in difficult cases such as judgments about mental imagery, and I conclude that worries about intractable methodological challenges in consciousness science are misguided. (shrink)

What should we make of systems that behave just like conscious creatures but operate via mechanisms that are profoundly different from our own? How should we even think about mechanistic similarity and difference in this context? To answer these questions, I take a closer look at the inferential machinery that allows us to justifiably draw conclusions about consciousness in others. I argue that inferences about consciousness in others are best viewed as involving analogical inferences grounded in explanatory considerations. I conclude (...) that profound mechanistic difference severs the evidential link between behavioural evidence and subjective experience. I then draw on recent developments within the mechanistic philosophy of science to motivate a conception of mechanistic similarity that is not wedded to similarity of physical substrate and outline a strategy for resolving disputes about whether it is cognitive similarity or neural similarity that matters for inferences about consciousness. (shrink)

A central project for the neuroscience of consciousness is to reveal the neural basis of consciousness. For the past 20-odd years, this project has been conceptualized in terms of minimal sufficiency. Recently, a number of authors have suggested that the project is better conceived in mechanistic terms as the search for difference-makers. In this paper, I (i) motivate this mechanistic alternative to minimal sufficiency, (ii) develop it further by clarifying debates about the prospects of leveraging mutual manipulability to distinguish constitutive (...) difference-makers from those that are merely causal, and (iii) explore the implications this has for recent debates concerning the status of the prefrontal cortex. I argue that adopting a mechanistic approach to the neuroscience of consciousness suggests that the prefrontal cortex is part of the neural mechanisms underlying consciousness even if it is not strictly speaking a necessary part. (shrink)