4 ms·

Terminology doesn't change anything, assume everything is about phenomenological consciousness. According to Chalmers brain doesn't differentiate between access

• omginternets 6y ago
  It's been a while, but yes, that does ring a bell. Ok, so you have a "Zombie" that has all the behaviors and physiological processes associated with access, but no qualia. In principle, we might learn everything there is to know about access and still have no insight into qualia. Have I summarized that correctly? Assuming so, my position with respect to "why study neural correlates" is: 1. Access (whatever that is), is still interesting and worth studying, if only to find out what it actually is, and even if it's "just" working memory or attention. 2. At the very least, we will have succeeded in distinguishing access from phenomenology. Our common human understanding of (phenomenal) consciousness will have advanced insofar as we will understand it to exclude access and all its second-order effects. 3. It remains to be proven that there is something more to explain than "just" the physiology and intentionality of brain processes with respect to access. If there is, Chalmers might be right. If not, the point goes to Dennett -- and think about the implications!