Cited by 37Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceEmbodied and Extended CognitionEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

How does the brain encode epistemic reliability? Perceptual presence, phenomenal transparency, and counterfactual richness.

Open access
Metzinger, Thomas·2014·Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Seth develops a convincing and detailed internalist alternative to the sensorimotor-contingency theory of perceptual phenomenology. However, there are remaining conceptual problems due to a semantic ambiguity in the notion of "presence" and the idea of "subjective veridicality." The current model should be integrated with the earlier idea that experiential "realness" and "mind-independence" are determined by the unavailability of earlier processing stages to attention. Counterfactual richness and attentional unavailability may both be indicators of the overall processing level currently achieved, a functional property that normally correlates with epistemic reliability. Perceptual presence as well as phenomenal transparency express epistemic reliability on the level of conscious processing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17588928.2014.905519

Cites

21 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Metzinger, T.
Affiliations
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Metzinger, Thomas
Venue
Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2014-04-03
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
122-124
ISSN
  • 1758-8928 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-8936
OpenAlex
W2010358983
Cited by
37
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
epistemic reliability, perceptual presence, phenomenal transparency, phenomenology of perception, conscious processing, mind-independence
MeSH terms
Synesthesia, Humans, Perception, Perceptual Disorders, Photic Stimulation

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