Dennett argues that we can be mistaken about our own conscious experience. Despite this, he repeatedly asserts that we can or do have unchallengeable authority of some sort in our reports about that experience. This assertion takes three forms. First, Dennett compares our authority to the authority of an author over his fictional world. Unfortunately, that appears to involve denying that there are actual facts about experience that subjects may be truly or falsely reporting. Second, Dennett sometimes seems to say that even though we may be mistaken about what our conscious experience is, our reports about “what it’s like to be us” must be correct. That view unfortunately requires a nonstandard and unremarked distinction between facts about consciousness and facts about “what it’s like.” Third, Dennett says that reports about experience may be “incorrigible.” However, that claim stands in tension with evidence, highlighted by Dennett himself, that seems to suggest that people can be demonstrably mistaken about their own experience. Dennett needlessly muddies his case against infallibilism with these unsatisfactory compromises.
[1]
G. L. Peterson.
Describing Inner Experience? Proponent Meets Skeptic
,
2009
.
[2]
John Wild,et al.
The Return to Reason.
,
1954
.
[3]
R. Rorty.
Incorrigibility as the Mark of the Mental
,
1970
.
[4]
Eric Schwitzgebel.
The Unreliability of Naive Introspection
,
2008
.
[5]
M. Gustafsson.
Rorty and His Critics
,
2000
.
[6]
Eric Schwitzgebel,et al.
Introspective Training Apprehensively Defended: Reflections on Titchener's Lab Manual.
,
2004
.
[7]
T. Nagel.
Mortal Questions: What is it like to be a bat?
,
2012
.
[8]
Eric Schwitzgebel.
How Well Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Visual Imagery
,
2001
.
[9]
J. López.
Sweet dreams
,
2001,
Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
[10]
Michael S. Gordon,et al.
How Well Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Human Echolocation
,
2000
.