Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2018, Vol. 13 Issue (3) : 332-348     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-007-018-0026-1
Orginal Article |
Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness
Giulio Tononi1(), Owen Flanagan2()
1. School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53719, USA
2. Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
Download: PDF(335 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This is a dialogue between a philosopher and a scientist about the scientific explanation of consciousness. What is consciousness? Does it admit of scientific explanation? If so, what must a scientific theory of consciousness be like in order to provide us with a satisfying explanation of its explanandum? And what types of entities might such a theory acknowledge as being conscious? Philosopher Owen Flanagan and scientist Giulio Tononi weigh in on these issues during an exchange about the nature and scientific explanation of consciousness.

Keywords consciousness      integrated information theory      phenomenology      hard problem of consciousness      scientific explanation     
Issue Date: 25 September 2018
 Cite this article:   
Giulio Tononi,Owen Flanagan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 332-348.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-007-018-0026-1
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2018/V13/I3/332
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Giulio Tononi
Owen Flanagan
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Paul Thagard. Mind, Consciousness, and Free Will[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 377-393.
[2] Timothy O’Connor. Consciousness, Free Will, and the Sciences of the Mind[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 394-401.
[3] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[4] Patricia Huntington. Place as Refuge: Exploring the Poetical Legacy of Matsuo Bashō[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 572-590.
[5] Frank Schalow. A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 377-394.
[6] Saulius Geniusas. Max Scheler’s Phenomenology of Pain[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 358-376.
[7] Welsh Talia. Many Healths: Nietzsche and Phenomenologies of Illness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 338-357.
[8] Tara Kennedy. The Ethics of Treating Animals as Resources: A Post-Heideggerian Approach[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 463-482.
[9] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[10] JIN Xiping. Heidegger’s Conception of Being-with (Mitsein ) and His Simple Designation of Social and Political Reality in the Black Notebooks[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 415-429.
[11] François Raffoul. The Invisible and the Secret: Of a Phenomenology of the Inapparent[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 395-414.
[12] WANG Tangjia. A Philosophical Analysis of the Concept of Crisis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 254-267.
[13] LI Zhongwei. Husserl on Intentionality as an Essential Property of Consciousness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 87-108.
[14] Oliver Davies. Religion, Politics and Ethics: Towards a Global Theory of Social Transformation[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(4): 572-597.
[15] XIE Wenyu. The Concept of Junzi in the Zhongyong[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 501-520.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed