Cited by 25Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePhilosophy and History of ScienceFree Will and Agency

Explaining what?

Irvine, Elizabeth·2017·Topoi

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11245-014-9273-4

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In consciousness science, there is widespread disagreement about the way consciousness should be operationalised and the kinds of data that are relevant for theory development and critique.

    “Such advantages may be particularly apt for driving progress in a field such as consciousness science (Corcoran et al., 2023), where there is widespread disagreement about the way consciousness should be operationalised and the kinds of data that are relevant for theory development and critique (Francken et al., 2022; Irvine, 2017; Yaron et al., 2022).”
  • The lack of consensus about the relevant phenomena for a scientific theory of consciousness is likely a product of vastly divergent intuitions about which features of mental life should be included within a scientific conception of consciousness.

    “This lack of consensus is perhaps somewhat surprising given our own intimate acquaintance with conscious experience (Chalmers, 1996; Wiese, 2018), but likely a product of vastly divergent intuitions about which features of mental life should be included within a scientific conception of consciousness (and how they ought to be operationalised for scientific investigation; Irvine, 2017; Phillips, 20”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irvine, E.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Irvine, Elizabeth
Venue
Topoi
Published
2014-10-10
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
95-106
ISSN
  • 0167-7411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8749
OpenAlex
W3189623637
Cited by
25
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Topoi (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
hard problem of consciousness, materialism, consciousness studies, phenomenal consciousness, philosophy of mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review