Mental Paint and Mental Latex
Abstract
The greatest chasm in the philosophy of mind -maybe even all of philosophydivides two perspectives on consciousness. The two perspectives differ on whether there is anything in the phenomenal character of conscious experience that goes beyond the intentional, the cognitive and the functional. A convenient terminological handle on the dispute is whether there are qualia. Those who think that the phenomenal character of conscious experience goes beyond the intentional, the cognitive and the functional are said to believe in qualitative properties of conscious experience, or qualia for short. The debates about qualia have recently focused on the notion of representation, with issues about functionalism always in the background. All can agree that there are representational contents of thoughts, for example the representational content that virtue is its own reward. And friends of qualia can agree that experiences at least sometimes have representational content too, e.g. that something red and round occludes something blue and square. The recent focus of disagreement is on whether the phenomenal character of experience
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Computational functionalism does not entail that any substrate can be used to construct a conscious system.
“That said, computational functionalism does not entail that any substrate can be used to construct a conscious system (Block 1996).”
From Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness (2023) · cites this paper as Block 1996
Cites
The Intrinsic Quality of Experience
Harman, G. (1990) · Philosophical Perspectives · doi:10.2307/2214186 · Cited by 1,409 · see citing works
Harman, G. (1982) · Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic · doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093883628 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness
Butlin, P., Long, R., Elmoznino, E., Bengio, Y., Birch, J., Constant, A., Deane, G., Fleming, S. M., Frith, C., Ji, X., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.08708 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Weisberg, J. (2011) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9567-3 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Subjectivity and the Elusiveness of the Self
Howell, R. J. (2010) · Canadian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00455091.2010.10716731 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Birch, J. (2024) · The Edge of Sentience · doi:10.1093/9780191966729.003.0003 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Block, N.
- Corresponding author
- Block, Ned
- ORCID
- Block, Ned
- Venue
- Philosophical Issues
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 19
- ISSN
- 1533-6077 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081557792
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 3.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophical Issues (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
- Keywords
- qualia, representational content, functionalism, intentional content, 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