Towards a Scientific Account of Experience

Nicholson, Dennis (2008) Towards a Scientific Account of Experience. [Preprint]

Full text available as:

PDF - Draft Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.



I outline and develop a particular physicalist perspective on qualia, and suggest that it may be the basis of a correct account of the relationship of mental states to the physical world. Assume that a quale is a perspective on a physical state in the organism – the reality as known as distinct from the reality as such – but that the perspective, though it entails irreducible experiential knowledge, has no physical substance over that encompassed in the physical state itself. Assume this physical state is also a brain state. The position is a useful one. First, reductionist physicalism is true, but experiential qualities are irreducible physical knowledge, and a required part of our physical world view. Second, experiences are not additional problems over those addressed externally, but only how these problems seem when known internally – an experience just is the physical state that underlies its external counterpart, and the same standard scientific account suffices to explain both, permitting a science of consciousness to develop by applying the same standard external–observer–based methods adopted in older scientific disciplines. Finally, challenges to physicalism associated with the ‘unbridgeable gap’, Leibniz's Law, Jackson's knowledge argument, and Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness are successfully countered.

Item Type:Preprint
Keywords:mind-body problem, physicalism, Identity theory, qualia, hard problem of consciousness, Knowledge argument, Leibniz’s law
Subjects:Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind
ID Code:6169
Deposited By: Nicholson, Dennis
Deposited On:15 Aug 2008 02:17
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:57

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Alter, T. (2006). The Knowledge Argument, Retrieved July 12, 2007, from Knowledge Argument.pdf. Forthcoming in S. Schneider, and M. Velmans (Eds), Blackwell Companion to Consciousness.

Borst, C.V. (1970). The Mind–Brain Identity Theory. London: MacMillan.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (3), 200–219.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, D.J. (2003). Consciousness and its Place in Nature. In S. Stich and F. Warfield (Eds), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind (102–42). Oxford: Blackwell.

Conee, E. (1994). Phenomenal Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72, 136–150.

Deutsch, M. (1999). Subjective Physical Facts, paper given at conference on The Conscious Mind, University of Buffalo, 1999, Retrieved May 11, 2001 from

Flanagan, O. (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gertler, Brie (1999). A Defense of the Knowledge Argument. Philosophical Studies, 93, 317–36.

Graham, G. and Horgan, T. (2000). Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Philosophical Studies, 99, 59–87.

Himma, K.E. (2005). What is a Problem for All is a Problem for None: Substance Dualism, Physicalism, and the Mind–Body Problem. American Philosophical Quarterly. 42 (2), 81–92.

Hodgson, D. (2005). Goodbye To Qualia And All That? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12(2), 84–88.

Horowitz, A. and Jacobson–Horowitz, H. (2005). The Knowledge argument And Higher–Order Properties. Ratio, XVIII, 48–64.

Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal Qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–36.

Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary Didn’t Know. The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 291–95.

Jackson, F. (2003). Mind and Illusion. In A. O’Hear (Ed), Minds and Persons (251–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lewis, D. (1988). What Experience Teaches. In William G. Lycan (Ed), Mind and Cognition: A Reader (499–519). Cambridge, MIT: Blackwell.

MacDonald, C. (2004). Mary Meets Molyneux: The Explanatory Gap and the Individuation of Phenomenal Concepts. Nous, XXXVIII(3), 503–524.

McGinn, C. (1991). The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it Like to be a Bat? The Philosophical review, 83, 435–450. Reprinted in Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal Questions (165–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nemirov, L. (1980). Review of Mortal Questions by Thomas Nagel. Philosophical Review 89, 473–477.

Nemirov, L. (1990). Physicalism and the Cognitive Role of Acquaintance. In William G. Lycan (Ed) Mind and Cognition: A Reader (490–499). Cambridge, MIT: Blackwell.

Papineau, D. (1997). Mind the Gap. In J. Tomberlin (Ed), Philosophical Perspectives, 12, Language, Mind, and Ontology (373–388). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Putnam, H. (1975). The nature of Mental States. In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (429–440). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sommers, Tamler (2002). Of Zombies, Color Scientists, and Floating Iron Bars. Psyche, 8(22), November 2002, Retrieved July 12, 2007, from–8–22–sommers.html

Strawson, G. (1994). Mental Reality. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT Press, Bradford Books.

Tye, M. (1999). Phenomenal Consciousness: The Explanatory Gap as a Cognitive Illusion. Mind, 108 (432), 705–725.


Repository Staff Only: item control page