Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-07-04T11:33:40Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Cínthia Roso Oliveira_.pdf: 1706511 bytes, checksum: 1a1617a80917349cfb5347c0c3474a67 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-04T11:33:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cínthia Roso Oliveira_.pdf: 1706511 bytes, checksum: 1a1617a80917349cfb5347c0c3474a67 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-06 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / PROSUP - Programa de Suporte à Pós-Gradução de Instituições de Ensino Particulares / O objetivo desta tese é investigar se há uma relação mente-corpo e, se sim, como podemos caracterizá-la. No primeiro capítulo, investigamos em que sentido há um problema mente e corpo, pois se compreendermos que os conceitos mentais são confusos e podem ser eliminados, ou que são significativos, mas podem ser reduzidos às explicações dos processos físicos no corpo, não faz sentido dizer que há um problema mente-corpo. No entanto, os qualia são aspectos mentais que resistem à eliminação ou à redução. Além disso, se compreendermos que a ideia de causação é um princípio epistêmico e que não se refere, de fato, a coisas no mundo que se relacionam, investigar uma possível interferência metafísica da mente, em especial dos qualia, no corpo também não faria sentido. No segundo capítulo, investigamos possíveis explicações para a conexão psicofísica que faz com que a mente em geral, e os qualia em particular, pareça influenciar os nossos comportamentos. A perspectiva dualista substancial seria insatisfatória, dentre outros problemas, na medida em que a explicação de como se dá a conexão psicofísica depende da aceitação da existência de Deus, algo questionável. Investigamos, então, algumas propostas monistas que defendem uma perspectiva não-reducionista em relação aos eventos mentais. As perspectivas de Davidson e Chalmers mostram-se frágeis em explicar o poder causal dos eventos mentais e, embora Kim consiga evitar o problema do epifenomenismo, ele assume uma posição eliminativista quanto aos qualia, o que não resolveria o problema. No terceiro capítulo, procuramos avaliar em que sentido a perspectiva não-reducionista de David Bohm sobre a relação mente-corpo conseguiria responder ao problema do epifenomenismo. Para ele, os aspectos mental e material existem um em participação com o outro na realidade e aí está a base da compreensão do ‘poder causal do mental’, que, como potencial atividade da informação, tem o poder de permitir que uma informação ativa nova atualize-se, alterando o seu aspecto material. A partir dessa perspectiva, pode-se compreender a consciência fenomênica como um tipo de ordem implícita muito sutil e complexa, que pode emergir de ordens implícitas menos sutis, as quais apresentam aspecto quase-mental. No quarto capítulo, argumentamos que a participação mente-corpo pode ser considerada uma conexão causal, compreendendo-a como uma categoria de causação, que estabelece um vínculo particular entre duas coisas, o que seria compatível com a novidade qualitativa que existe na ação humana. Neste capítulo ainda, defendemos que a perspectiva de Bohm sobre a participação mente-matéria na informação ativa pode ser compreendida como uma interação entre as quatro causas: formal, final, eficiente e material. As quatro funcionam como uma causação única, modificando-se a si mesma enquanto outra. E isso explicaria a capacidade que os seres humanos têm de automodificarem-se e, consequentemente, o poder causal dos qualia de interferir no comportamento humano. Por fim, no quinto capítulo, argumentamos que o ser humano pode ser compreendido como um sistema complexo que se auto-organiza mediante as suas relações com o mundo. Estabelecemos a relação entre a autocausação no sistema humano como um tipo de auto-organização secundária (de acordo com Debrun), que pressupõe a recriação de sua própria forma. Sustentamos, ademais, que a relação entre os diversos níveis hierárquicos de organização no ser humano dá-se por causação circular, na qual as partes interferem no todo, e ele, por sua vez, retroage sobre as partes, permitindo a emergência de novas propriedades. Além disso, esclarecemos que só podemos compreender a participação mente e corpo no ser humano como uma auto-organização de um sistema complexo em um mundo. Consideramos que também, entre o ser humano e o mundo (este compreendido como um ambiente natural e cultural, que inclui diversos sistemas, inclusive, outros seres humanos), há causação circular, dentre vários outros tipos de determinação. Portanto, a resposta apresentada para o problema mente-corpo é que a mente, incluindo os qualia, não pode ser reduzida aos processos físicos do corpo. A consciência fenomênica, como aspecto mental por excelência, refere-se à subjetividade da experiência do ser humano no mundo; só ele pode saber o que ele sente com as suas experiências e como as sente. Esse nível fenomênico emergiria de um nível protofenomênico, no qual já há um aspecto mental (quase-mental) compreendido como potencial atividade da informação, considerado como uma interação das causas eficiente, formal e final, que, ao interagirem com a causa material, aspecto material (atual atividade da informação), produzem uma mudança em si mesmos qua outro. Essa compreensão do aspecto mental como potencial atividade da informação permite compreender o poder causal do aspecto mental e como o nível fenomênico emerge dos níveis protofenomênicos da realidade, os qualia, aspectos mentais de sistemas complexos como o ser humano, podem ser compreendidos como exibindo um poder causal sobre o corpo. / The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether there is a mind-body relationship and, if so, how we can characterize it. In the first chapter we investigate in what sense there is a mind-body problem, for if we understand that mental concepts are confusing and can be eliminated, or that they are significant, but can be reduced to the explanations of physical processes in the body, it does not make sense to say that there is a mind-body problem. However, qualia are mental aspects that resist elimination or reduction. Furthermore, if we understand that the idea of causation is an epistemic principle and does not actually refer to things in the world, investigating a possible interference of mind, especially of qualia, into body would also make no sense. In the second chapter, we investigate possible explanations for the psychophysical connection that makes mind in general, and qualia in particular, seem to influence our behaviors. Substantial dualistic perspective would be unsatisfactory, among other problems, insofar as the explanation of how the psychophysical connection takes place depends on accepting the existence of God, which is something questionable. We then investigate some monistic proposals that advocate a non-reductionist perspective on mental events. The perspectives of Davidson and Chalmers are fragile in explaining the causal power of mental events; and although Kim is able to avoid the problem of epiphenomenalism, he assumes an eliminativist position on qualia, which would not solve the problem. In the third chapter, we tried to evaluate in what sense David Bohm’s non-reductionist perspective on the mind-body relationship could answer to the problem of epiphenomenalism. For him, the mental and material aspects exist in participation with each other in reality, and therein lies the basis of the understanding of the ‘causal power of the mental’, which, as a potential activity of information, has the power to allow active information update itself by changing its material aspect. From this perspective, we can comprehend the phenomenal consciousness as a very subtle and complex sort of implicate order, that may emerge from less subtle implicate orders which have a mind-like aspect. In the fourth chapter, we argue that mind-body participation can be considered a causal connection, understanding it as a category of causation that establishes a particular link between two things, which would be compatible with the qualitative novelty that exists in human action. In this chapter we further argue that Bohm’s perspective on mind-matter participation in active information can be understood as an interaction between the four causes: formal, final, efficient, and material. They function as a single causation, modifying itself as being another. And this would explain the ability of humans to self-cause and, consequently, the causal power of qualia to interfere with human behavior. Finally, in the fifth chapter, we argue that the human being can be understood as a complex system that organizes itself through its relations with the world. We establish the relation between self-causation in the human system as a kind of secondary self-organization (according to Debrun), which presupposes the re-creation of its own form. We maintain that the relationship between the various hierarchical levels of organization in the human being occur by circular causation in which the parts interfere in the whole, and this, in turn, retroacts on the parts, allowing the emergence of new properties. In addition, we clarify that we can only understand the mind-body participation in the human being as a self-organization of a complex system in a world. We also consider that there is circular causation, among other types of determination, between the human being and the world (understood as a natural and cultural environment that includes several systems, besides other human beings). So the answer presented to the mind-body problem is that the mind, including qualia, cannot be reduced to the physical processes of the body. The phenomenal consciousness, as the mental aspect par excellence, refers to the subjectivity of the experience of human beings in the world; only one can know what and how they feel with their experiences. This phenomenal level would emerge from a protophenomenal level, in which there is already a mental (mind-like) aspect understood as a potential activity of information, considered as an efficient, formal and final interaction of causes, that when interacting with material cause, material aspect (actual active information), produces a change in oneself qua another. This understanding of the mental aspect as a potential activity of information enables us to understand the causal power of the mental aspect and as the phenomenal level emerges from the protophenomenal levels of reality, the qualia, mental aspect of complex systems like human beings, can be understood as exhibiting a causal power over the body.

Phenomenal consciousness presents a recalcitrant problem for the scientific conception of the world and the physicalist thesis that claims that everything that exists (including whatever is involved in any mental phenomena) is physical and physically explainable. Thus, on this view, every truth is a physical truth. By Putnam-Kripkean considerations and for several other reasons, I defend the claim that any version of such a physicalist thesis must be a necessary thesis, which ultimately means that contingent physicalism is not tenable. Against this thesis, philosophers have put forward several anti-physicalist arguments including the knowledge argument, the conceivability/modal argument, the explanatory gap argument, and the property dualism argument. All these arguments rest on the assumption of an epistemic/explanatory gap, which I call the &ldquo / phenomenal-physical gap,&rdquo / between the phenomenal and the physical. I claim that the phenomenal-physical gap (the PP-gap) is unbridgeable, from which it can be concluded that a priori physicalism is not tenable. The phenomenal concept strategy (PCS), which is a specific strategy within a posteriori necessary physicalism, aims at offering an explanation in physical terms of why we have such an unbridgeable gap by differentiating between phenomenal and physical concepts in a fundamental way. Nevertheless, proponents of PCS&mdash / the most promising version of a posteriori necessary physicalism&mdash / face a severe problem that I call &ldquo / the problem of phenomenal subjecthood&rdquo / in explaining in physical terms why we have the PP-gap. The phenomenon of &ldquo / experiencing&rdquo / consists of three substantially existing elements: the phenomenal subject (the experiencer), the experiential item (what is experienced by the subject), and the phenomenal s-v-o relation (the experiential relation) between the first two. I argue for the substantial existence of phenomenal subjects based on an argument I provide, the reality of some mental phenomena such as phenomenal unity and continuity, and the mental facts concerning phenomenal peculiarity, phenomenal agency, and the sense of phenomenal I-ness, the reality of all of which one cannot deny. Since PCS accounts are mostly qualia-centered accounts that ignore the reality of phenomenal subjects and the phenomenal s-v-o relation, they cannot account for the PP-gap in physical terms without first offering substantial theories of phenomenal subjecthood. But once they grant the substantiality of phenomenal subjects, they face severe difficulties in establishing their accounts of the nature of phenomenal concept, and thus the PP-gap in physical terms.

Depuis une décennie, les études sur la pensée de Brentano connaissent un souffle de renouveau. De sa doctrine, on retient le fameux thème de l'intentionnalité qui a soulevé un certain nombre de discussions sur ce que signifie réellement ce concept et ce que Brentano a voulu dire lorsqu'il l'a réintroduit. Dans la philosophie contemporaine, le passage en question qui décrit ce concept l'interprète le plus souvent comme la marque d'une irréductibilité du mental au physique, l'idée qu'il existerait un idiome ou vocable particulier pour décrire les états mentaux et l'esprit en général (intensionnalité). Récemment dans les contributions en philosophie de l'esprit, sa conception de l'esprit a connu un accueil favorable qui se distingue nettement de la première reception de son concept d'intentionnalité dans la philosophie du langage. D'une manière significative, sa théorie de la conscience s'est vu associée à différentes conceptions rivales de l'esprit : théories d'ordre supérieur, autoreprésentationnalisme et différentes autres variétés de représentationnalisme et d'intentionnalisme qui se réclame d'un aspect ou un autre de la conception de l'esprit de Brentano. L'objectif de cette thèse est d'explorer le thème du néo-brentanisme en identifiant dans la littérature contemporaine les théories dîtes "néobrentaniennes". / The famous intentionality quote from Brentano's Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint gave rise to many different glosses on how to understand what is meant by intentionality. Since Chisholm, Quine, and Davidson, the passage has often been referred to as making a claim about the irreducibility of the mental to the physical, turning Brentano's thesis that intentionality is the mark of the mental into a thesis about the peculiar idiom or vocabulary of the mental – a thesis about intensionality. However, in recent contributions to the philosophy of mind, the reception of Brentano's philosophy of mind has departed to a large extent from this first reception of the intentionality thesis. Interestingly, his conception of intentionality and consciousness has been integrated into diverse and sometimes competing accounts of the mind: higher-order theories of consciousness, self-representational accounts and varieties of representationalism and intentionalism often relate to Brentano's conception of the mind. The goal of this thesis is to explore neo-brentanian's subject identifying the neo-brentanian theories of mind and consciousness.

Two influential theories of consciousness disagree about if consciousness initially arises along the occipitotemporal cortex to later engage frontoparietal regions and attentional mechanisms, or if it necessarily requires the latter. Consequently, different predictions are made about the temporal emergence of consciousness. The event-related potential (ERP) technique can be used to resolve the issue. It can temporally track neural activity of consciously perceived stimuli relative to stimuli bypassing consciousness. This essay describes the two theories and reviews ERP studies on visual consciousness and its relationship to attention. Three ERP correlates of consciousness have been proposed. The question is if they should be interpreted as supporting the one or the other theory. Most plausibly, visual consciousness arises along occipitotemporal regions and later incorporates frontal areas engaging higher cognitive functions. Importantly it seems that consciousness cannot arise without spatial attention/parietal regions.

Les états mentaux peuvent essentiellement avoir deux types de propriétés : des propriétés intentionnelles, qui font en sorte que les états mentaux ont un contenu, et des propriétés phénoménales, qui font en sorte que les états mentaux sont consciemment vécus. L’instanciation de chacun de ces deux types de propriétés constitue respectivement ce qu’on appelle l’intentionnalité et la conscience phénoménale. Une question cruciale en philosophie de l’esprit contemporaine consiste à se demander quelle est la relation entre l’intentionnalité et la conscience phénoménale. Les théories de l’intentionnalité phénoménale, qui ont gagné en popularité dans les dernières années, soutiennent que l’intentionnalité dépend fondamentalement de la conscience phénoménale. Comme ces théories représentent aujourd’hui une des principales conceptions de l’intentionnalité disponibles, il est crucial d’évaluer leur plausibilité, ce que je me propose de faire dans le présent mémoire. Or, comme je tenterai de le montrer, les propriétés intentionnelles ne dépendent pas des propriétés phénoménales au sens où l’entendent les défenseurs des théories de l’intentionnalité phénoménale. En effet, les théories de l’intentionnalité phénoménale ne sont pas en mesure d’expliquer une des caractéristiques fondamentales de l’intentionnalité, à savoir le fait que les états intentionnels s’accompagnent de conditions de satisfaction, et si elles y parviennent ce n’est qu’en présupposant l’intentionnalité en attribuant des caractéristiques intentionnelles aux états phénoménaux. Ce résultat nous contraint à nous tourner vers une autre conception de la relation entre l’intentionnalité et la conscience phénoménale. / Mental states can essentially have two types of properties: intentional properties, in virtue of which mental states have content, and phenomenal properties, in virtue of which mental states are consciously experienced. The instantiation of each of these two types of properties constitutes respectively what is called intentionality and phenomenal consciousness. A crucial question in contemporary philosophy of mind is to ask what the relationship between intentionality and phenomenal consciousness is. The phenomenal intentionality theories, which have gained popularity in recent years, argue that intentionality is fundamentally dependent on phenomenal consciousness. Since these theories now represent one of the main conceptions of intentionality available, it is crucial to assess their plausibility, which I propose to do in this master’s thesis. As I will try to show, intentional properties do not depend on phenomenal properties as understood by the advocates of the phenomenal intentionality theories. Indeed, the phenomenal intentionality theories are not able to explain one of the fundamental characteristics of intentionality, namely the fact that intentional states are accompanied by conditions of satisfaction, and that if they succeed in doing so, it is only by presupposing intentionality by assigning intentional characteristics to phenomenal states. This result forces us to turn to another conception of the relationship between intentionality and phenomenal consciousness.

En 1995, le philosophe Ned Block a proposé de distinguer deux notions de conscience : une notion purement expérientielle, la « conscience phénoménale », qui désigne l’effet que cela fait d’être dans tel ou tel état mental, et une notion purement fonctionnelle, la « conscience d’accès », ou « accès cognitif » (Block, 2007), entendue comme la capacité du sujet à utiliser ses représentations pour le contrôle de ses opérations cognitives, et, via ces opérations, pour le contrôle de la parole et de l’action. Block défend depuis l’hypothèse très discutée selon laquelle l’expérience consciente, ou « conscience phénoménale », déborde l’accès cognitif du sujet. L’objet central de ce travail est de mettre cette hypothèse à l’épreuve de la recherche sur le rêve. Nous y soutenons principalement les trois arguments suivants : 1. Sous hypothèse d’une continuité entre les propriétés de la mémoire onirique et vigile, on peut objectiver la réalité d’expériences conscientes pendant le sommeil en s’appuyant sur le critère canonique de rapportabilité. De fait, de nombreuses études convergent pour montrer que les sujets peuvent rapporter un contenu onirique qui reflète de manière non équivoque un stimulus présenté plus d’une minute avant l’éveil – ce qui, au regard de l’extrême évanescence de la perception subliminale, ne pourrait pas être le cas si le rêve était un processus inconscient. Sachant que le sommeil s’accompagne d’une sévère désactivation des aires frontales, et en particulier du cortex dorsolatéral préfontal (DlPFC), un tel résultat tend à questionner le modèle neuropsychologique de « l’espace neuronal global de travail » (Dehaeneet Naccache, 2001 ; Dehaene et al, 2006) qui fait dépendre la perception consciente de l’activation de ces aires.2. Le fait même d’objectiver la réalité d’expériences conscientes pendant le sommeil à travers des récits de rêves recueillis à l’éveil implique cependant de reconnaître que ces mêmes expériences ont été remarquées par le dormeur et qu’elles relèvent en ce sens minimum de la conscience d’accès. Pour autant, certains désordres cognitifs de la conscience rêvante, tels notamment que la cécité au changement, suggèrent qu’il ne suffit pas qu’une expérience soit remarquée par le dormeur pour qu’elle relève de plein droit de la conscience d’accès : il fautencore qu’elle puisse être maintenue activement dans la mémoire de travail. Le phénomène bien connu des « dissociations identité-apparence » (Schwartz, 1999) suggère pareillement que la rapportabilité d’une expérience onirique n’assure pas qu’elle soit posée pour le contrôle des opérations cognitives dans le rêve.3. Dès l’instant où l’on a pu objectiver la réalité des expériences oniriques à travers le critère canonique de rapportabilité, il devient possible – là encore, sous hypothèse de continuité –d’inférer de façon empiriquement contraignante l’existence d’une vie consciente non rapportable du dormeur. Se pose alors la question de savoir si un tel vécu, dont on peut soutenir qu’il constitue une forme d’inconscient psychique, relève de plein droit de la conscience d’accès.Enfin, à travers ces trois arguments portant spécifiquement sur la conscience onirique, nous montrons que la recherche sur le rêve permet de questionner de façon privilégiée la notion d’une nécessaire rapportabilité de l’expérience consciente et de faire valoir le concept de modularité de la conscience qui sous-tend l’hypothèse blockéenne du débordement expérientiel (Block, 1995, 1997). / In 1995, the American philosopher Ned Block proposed to distinguish between two notions of consciousness: “Access-consciousness” and “Phenomenal-consciousness”. “P-consciousness” is experience: it refers to what it is like to be in a certain mental state. “Aconsciousness” is a purely functional notion. A mental state is A-conscious when it allows the subject to cognitively control its reasoning, speech and action. Since 1995, Block supports the controversial hypothesis according to which conscious experience overflows our cognitive access to it. The main goal of this work is to assess this hypothesis from the point of view of scientific research on dreaming. This PhD dissertation makes the three following points : 1. Assuming there is a continuity between waking and dreaming memory, one can objectively verify that dreams are conscious experiences that occur during sleep relying on the canonical criterion of reportability. Indeed, many studies show that subjects can report on a dream content that unequivocally reflects a stimulus that has occurred more than one minute before awakening – which couldn’t be had this dream content been unconsciously processed. Considering that sleeping involves a severe deactivation of the frontal areas of the brain, especially of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DlPFC), this result seems to call into question the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness. Indeed, according to this theory the activation of these very areas is a necessary condition for a conscious perception to occur(Dehaene & Naccache, 2001; Dehaene et al, 2006). 2. There is no way though to demonstrate scientifically that dreams are conscious experiences of the sleeper without implying they were noticed during sleep, which, in turn, implies an elementary level of access. Still, certain cognitive disorders of our dreaming consciousness, such as change blindness, suggest that, due to a severe weakness of working memory, noticing an experience during sleep might not suffice to constitute a genuine cognitive access to it. The well-known phenomenon called “identity-appearance dissociation” (Schwartz, 1999) also suggests that dreaming experiences that are reportable on awakening might not always be poised for cognitive control in the dream. 3. Once the reality of conscious experiences during sleep is objectively established relying on the criterion of reportability, it becomes possible – again under the assumption of continuity - to empirically infer the existence of dreaming experiences that the subject cannot report. The following question then arises: are these experiences, which can be seen as a form of unconscious mental life, access-conscious? Finally, and more generally, we show that the results of dreaming research offer a vantage point both to call into question the notion that conscious experience is necessarily reportable and to support the concept of modularity of our conscious selves (Nagel, 1971; Gazzaniga,1985) that underlies Block’s overflow hypothesis (Block, 1995, 1997)

Ce mémoire se penche sur la possibilité de la conscience artificielle. Plus spécifiquement, je me demande s’il est possible qu’un robot, un ordinateur ou toute autre machine ait une conscience phénoménale, i.e. qu’il y ait un effet que cela fait que d’être ces systèmes. Après avoir brièvement caractérisé la conscience phénoménale, j’investiguerai quelques problèmes qui sont propres à la conscience, soit le problème difficile de la conscience ainsi que le problème des autres esprits, dans le but d’établir le cadre conceptuel qui nous permettra de réfléchir quant à la possibilité de la conscience artificielle. Dans le deuxième chapitre, je défendrai la thèse selon laquelle la conscience artificielle est possible en m’appuyant notamment sur le principe d’invariance organisationnelle défendu, entre autres, par David Chalmers, ainsi que sur la théorie computationnelle de l’esprit. Finalement, dans le troisième et dernier chapitre, j’évaluerai diverses objections contre la possibilité de la conscience artificielle que je tenterai tour à tour de réfuter dans le but maintenir ma thèse initiale aussi intacte que possible. / This thesis examines the possibility of artificial consciousness. More specifically, I consider the possibility for a robot, computer or any other machine to have phenomenal consciousness, i.e. that there is something it is like to be those systems. After having briefly characterized phenomenal consciousness, I will investigate some problems that are specific to consciousness, namely the hard problem of consciousness as well as the problem of other minds, in order to establish the conceptual framework that will allow us to reflect upon the possibility of artificial consciousness. In the second chapter, I will defend the thesis that artificial consciousness is possible by relying on the principle of organizational invariance which is defended by David Chalmers, among others, as well as on the computational theory of the mind. Finally, in the third and last chapter, I will assess various objections against the possibility of artificial consciousness which I will try to refute in turn in order to keep my initial thesis as intact as possible.

Do all conscious states structurally necessitate self-consciousness? For many, the answer is affirmative: self-consciousness is an inherent property of phenomenal consciousness. I refer to this family of theses under the denomination of Strong Subjectivity Claim (SSC). However, reports of DIED (Drug-Induced Ego Dissolution) and MIED (Meditation-InducedEgo Dissolution) seem to suggest otherwise: there are at least some extraordinary circumstances under which no sense of self contributes to the resulting phenomenology. Similarly, subjectivity is altered in depersonalisation, a condition whereby the subject feels detached from oneself. I argue that different varieties of self-consciousness are altered or missing in concomitance with ego dissolution and depersonalisation. Nonetheless, I speculate that depersonalisation per se does not involve a lack of basic self-consciousness — while some reports of ego dissolution indicate that even the most minimal formulation of phenomenal self-consciousness is not adequately present. I identify two modalities —boundlessness and centrelessness — whose implication seems to be crucial in experiences of total lack of self-consciousness. All things considered, I conclude that, while self-consciousness could be a frequent feature of our ordinary experience, SSC is not plausible. In the absence of phenomenal self-consciousness, what remains is the epistemic observation that experiences are self-bounded: no one can have access to each other’s experiences in a first-personal manner. This ontological fact, however, need not be accompanied by a corresponding “sense of self”. Finally, I propose an account explaining the conceivableness of selfless self-reports resting on the premise of the subject being conscious and on her dispositional ability for self-consciousness. / Kräver alla medvetna tillstånd strukturellt självmedvetenhet? För många är svaret jakande: självmedvetenhet är en inneboende egenskap hos fenomenalt medvetande. Jag hänvisar till denna familj av avhandlingar under benämningen Strong Subjectivity Claim (SSC). Rapporter om DIED (Drug-Induced Ego Dissolution) och MIED (Meditation-Induced Ego Dissolution) verkar dock antyda något annat: det finns åtminstone några extraordinära omständigheter när en brist av känsla av jaget bidrar till den resulterande fenomenologin. På liknande sätt förändrar depersonalisation subjektiviteten, ett tillstånd där subjektet känner sig fristående från sig själv. Jag hävdar att olika varianter av självmedvetande förändras ellersaknas i samband med ego upplösning och depersonalisering. Icke desto mindre spekulerar jag att depersonalisation i sig inte innebär brist på grundläggande självmedvetenhet – medan vissa rapporter om egoupplösning indikerar att även den mest minimala formuleringen av fenomenal självmedvetenhet inte är tillräckligt närvarande. Jag identifierar två modaliteter -gränslöshet och centerlöshet - vars implikation verkar vara avgörande i upplevelser av total avsaknad av självmedvetenhet. Sammantaget drar jag slutsatsen att även om självmedvetenhet kan vara ett vanligt inslag i vår vanliga upplevelse, är SSC inte rimligt. I frånvaro av fenomenal självmedvetenhet, kvarstår den epistemiska observationen att upplevelser är självbundna: ingen kan ha tillgång till varandras upplevelser på ett förstapersonligt sätt. Detta ontologiska faktum behöver dock inte åtföljas av en motsvarande "känsla av jaget". Slutligen föreslår jag en redogörelse som förklarar tänkbarheten av osjälviska självrapporter som vilar på premissen att subjektet är medvetet och på hennes dispositionsförmåga till självmedvetenhet.

Cette thèse, qui relève de la philosophie de l'esprit, consiste en la défense d'une version de la théorie auto-représentationnelle de la conscience. En acceptant d'une part la notion d'état mental possédant un certain contenu qui peut être conscient ou inconscient, et d'autre part l'hypothèse plausible que le contenu de tout état mental consiste en une représentation, alors le problème de la manifestation de la conscience s'appliquant au contenu de CERTAINS états mentaux acquiert intelligibilité dans ce cadre. Il peut être compris comme la recherche d'une structure de représentation qui donne lieu à cette manifestation. Pour certains auteurs (Fred Dretske, Michael Tye et dautres), des conditions particulières dans la représentation directe de l'objet y suffisent, pour d'autres (en particulier David Rosenthal) il y faut une méta-représentation de l'objet sous certaines conditions. Ni l'une ni l'autre de ces structures ne s'avère cependant suffisante pour justifier la démarcation entre états mentaux conscients et inconscients, et pour caractériser la phénoménalité de la conscience. En prenant alors au sérieux l'intuition forte d'auto-référentialité de la conscience (présente déjà chez Aristote - suivant certaines interprétations -, reprise par Brentano, Sartre, et ces dernières années, par Uriah Kriegel et plusieurs autres), on est conduit à proposer, pour les états mentaux conscients, une structure d'auto-représentation (de la représentation) de l'objet qui sous-tend une intentionnalité consciente duale dirigée vers l'objet et en même temps vers elle-même. on résout ainsi les problèmes de la théorie méta-représentationnelle, mais il faut monter que ce schéma est intelligible, que le risque de régression à l'infini dans les capacités repésentationnelles de la conscience n'existe pas, et que de robustes intuitions sont ainsi éclairées, telles que la structuration du champ conscient entre premier plan et arrière-plan, et le lien entre conscience d'arrière plan, ou marginale, et conscience de soi. Ce lien dérive du fait que la conscience marginale, dans la perspective de l'auto-représentation, est la conscience de la conscience d'objet, et se qualifie aussi comme conscience subjective, c'est à dire conscience "pour moi" de l'objet. Et la conscience de soi se construit à partir des épisodes de conscience subjective. L'étude du rapport entre structures de représentation mentale consciente et configurations neuronales spatio-temporelles qui les produisent dans le cerveau est hors du domaine du présent travail, mais la présence nécessaire de ces relations demeure à l'arrière-plan, et affleure dans la réflexion quand cela peut être éclairant. / This work illustrates a version of the self-representational theory of consciousness. If one accepts on the one hand the notion of mental states that have a given content - conscious or unconscious - and on the other hand the plausible hypothesis that the content of all mental states consists in a representation, then the problem of the manifestation of consciousness for (the content of) SOME states becomes intelligible within this frame. This problem can be understood as the research of the representational structure which gives rise to this manifestation. For some authors ( Fred Dretske, Michael Tye, and others) certain particular conditions in the direct representation of the object are sufficient, for others (particularly David Rosenthal) a meta-representation is necessary, under given conditions. However neither of those structures results sufficient to justify the demarcation between conscious and unconscious states and to characterize the phenomenality of consciousness. If one then takes seriously into account the strong intuition of self-referentiality of consciousness (already present in Aristotle - following some interpretations -, taken up again by Brentano, Sartre, and lately by Uriah Kriegel and several others) one is conducted to propose a self-representational structure for conscious mental states which involves a dual conscious intentionality targeting the object and itself at the same time. The problems of the meta-representational theory are thus resolved, but it remains to be shown that this scheme is intelligible, that the risk of infinite regress of the representing capacity of consciousness does not exist, and that strong intuitions are thus acknowledged : such as the distinction in the conscious field between foreground and background, and the link between background, or marginal consciousness, and self consciousness. Within the self-representational view, this link originates from the fact that marginal consciousness is the consciousness of the consciousness of the object, and qualifies itself as subjective consciousness, that is to say, consciousness "for me" of the object. Self consciousness is then constructed from the episodes of subjective consciousness. The relationship between conscious mental representational structures and the spatio-temporal neuronal configurations which produce them in the brain, is outside the domain of the present work, but it is necessarily present in the background, and it is considered when useful for the argument.

Topic of this thesis is Dennett's criticism of the philosophical notion of qualia. First, the notion of qualia and the meaning it acquires within philosophy are introduced. Then, four thought experiments are presented to serve as an argument in favor of existence of qualia along with Dennett's reaction to these thought experiments. After that, Dennett's criticism of qualia as immediately apprehensible, ineffable, intrinsic and private properties of conscious mental states is introduced while one of the most common objections to this criticism is emphasized - Dennett's conception of qualia is too narrow and we can preserve it in a moderate way. Subsequently, the thesis outlines such a modest concept - the concept of phenomenal consciousness. This thesis attempts to show that there is no place for phenomenal consciousness in Dennett's heterophenomenology and Multiple Drafts model and that Dennett is as skeptical about this term as he is about the notion of qualia. In the end, the thesis asks the question whether it is really necessary to give up the concept of phenomenal consciousness if we want to study consciousness scientifically - from the third-person point of view.