Reasonable criteria for functionalists; scarce criteria from phenomenological perspective
In their article, Doerig et al suggest a set of criteria for evaluating theories of consciousness. Naturally, their criteria are situated in their own particular perspective on consciousness science, which we have critiqued in the past. Their first criterion is likely to be the one that is most productive and least contentious: if the field can agree to a family of paradigm cases for consciousness, this would be an important endeavor for the field.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Jan-Jan;12(2):41-62. - PMID 32663056 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:12 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Cognitive neuroscience - 12(2021), 2 vom: 15. Jan., Seite 95-96 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Haun, Andrew [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 26.10.2021 Date Revised 31.05.2022 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Jan-Jan;12(2):41-62. - PMID 32663056 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1080/17588928.2020.1838473 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM318463822 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM318463822 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225165415.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/17588928.2020.1838473 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1061.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM318463822 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33280493 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Haun, Andrew |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reasonable criteria for functionalists; scarce criteria from phenomenological perspective |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 26.10.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 31.05.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Jan-Jan;12(2):41-62. - PMID 32663056 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a In their article, Doerig et al suggest a set of criteria for evaluating theories of consciousness. Naturally, their criteria are situated in their own particular perspective on consciousness science, which we have critiqued in the past. Their first criterion is likely to be the one that is most productive and least contentious: if the field can agree to a family of paradigm cases for consciousness, this would be an important endeavor for the field | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Comment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Consciousness | |
| 650 | 4 | |a phenomenology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a unfolding | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tsuchiya, Naotsugu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cognitive neuroscience |d 2010 |g 12(2021), 2 vom: 15. Jan., Seite 95-96 |w (DE-627)NLM19551971X |x 1758-8936 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2021 |g number:2 |g day:15 |g month:01 |g pages:95-96 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2020.1838473 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 12 |j 2021 |e 2 |b 15 |c 01 |h 95-96 | ||