Dreams: An empirical way to settle the discussion between cognitive and non-cognitive theories of consciousness

14Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Cognitive theories claim, whereas non-cognitive theories deny, that cognitive access is constitutive of phenomenology. Evidence in favor of non-cognitive theories has recently been collected by Block and is based on the high capacity of participants in partial-report experiments compared to the capacity of the working memory. In reply, defenders of cognitive theories have searched for alternative interpretations of such results that make visual awareness compatible with the capacity of the working memory; and so the conclusions of such experiments remain controversial. Instead of entering the debate between alternative interpretations of partial-report experiments, this paper offers an alternative line of research that could settle the discussion between cognitive and non-cognitive theories of consciousness. Here I relate the neural correlates of cognitive access to empirical research into the neurophysiology of dreams; cognitive access seems to depend on the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. However, that area is strongly deactivated during sleep; a period when we entertain conscious experiences: dreams. This approach also avoids the classic objection that consciousness should be inextricably tied to reportability or it would fall outside the realm of science. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sebastián, M. Á. (2014). Dreams: An empirical way to settle the discussion between cognitive and non-cognitive theories of consciousness. Synthese, 191(2), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0385-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free