Philosophers commonly distinguish between an experience’s intentional content—what the experience represents—and its phenomenal character—what the experience is like for the subject. Separatism—the view that the intentional content and phenomenal character of an experience are independent of one another in the sense that neither determines the other—was once widely held. In recent years, however, separatism has become increasingly marginalized; at present, most philosophers who work on the issue agree that there must be some kind of necessary connection between an experience’s intentional content and phenomenal character. In contrast with the current consensus, I believe that a particular form of separatism remains the most plausible view of the relationship between an experience’s intentional content and phenomenal character. Accordingly, in this thesis I explain and defend a view that I call “moderate separatism.” The view is “moderate” in that the separatist claim is restricted to a particular class of phenomenal properties: I do not maintain that all the phenomenal properties instantiated by an experience are independent of that experience’s intentional content but only that this is true of the sensory qualities instantiated by that experience. I argue for moderate separatism by appealing to examples of ordinary experiences where sensory qualities and intentional content come apart. First I argue that an experience’s intentional content does not determine the sensory qualities it instantiates by appealing to cases where two experiences share the same intentional content but instantiate different sensory qualities. Then I argue that the sensory qualities instantiated by an experience do not determine its intentional content by appealing to cases where two experiences that instantiate the same sensory qualities differ with regard to intentional content. I consider a number of alternatives to my account of the intentional content and phenomenal character of the experiences at issue and argue that none is plausible. If so, it follows that the intentional content and sensory qualities instantiated by an experience are independent of one another.

Philosophers commonly distinguish between an experience’s intentional content—what the experience represents—and its phenomenal character—what the experience is like for the subject. Separatism—the view that the intentional content and phenomenal character of an experience are independent of one another in the sense that neither determines the other—was once widely held. In recent years, however, separatism has become increasingly marginalized; at present, most philosophers who work on the issue agree that there must be some kind of necessary connection between an experience’s intentional content and phenomenal character. In contrast with the current consensus, I believe that a particular form of separatism remains the most plausible view of the relationship between an experience’s intentional content and phenomenal character. Accordingly, in this thesis I explain and defend a view that I call “moderate separatism.” The view is “moderate” in that the separatist claim is restricted to a particular class of phenomenal properties: I do not maintain that all the phenomenal properties instantiated by an experience are independent of that experience’s intentional content but only that this is true of the sensory qualities instantiated by that experience. I argue for moderate separatism by appealing to examples of ordinary experiences where sensory qualities and intentional content come apart. First I argue that an experience’s intentional content does not determine the sensory qualities it instantiates by appealing to cases where two experiences share the same intentional content but instantiate different sensory qualities. Then I argue that the sensory qualities instantiated by an experience do not determine its intentional content by appealing to cases where two experiences that instantiate the same sensory qualities differ with regard to intentional content. I consider a number of alternatives to my account of the intentional content and phenomenal character of the experiences at issue and argue that none is plausible. If so, it follows that the intentional content and sensory qualities instantiated by an experience are independent of one another.

No description available.

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.