Upshot: We respond to three main challenges that the commentaries have raised. First, we argue that to deal successfully with the hard problem of consciousness, it is not enough to posit a remedy by which to move beyond the hard problem. Second, we argue that it makes no sense to explain identity. Yet this does not commit us to definitions by fiat. The strategy we pursue here, and in the target article, is not to explain identity but to explain away the appearance of non-identity. Finally, while we are sympathetic to Varela’s call for a paradigm shift in consciousness studies, we argue here, and in the target article, that this call can only be properly successful if the hard problem is dismantled.
Kirchhoff M. D. & Hutto D. D. (2016) Authors’ response: Mind never the gap, redux. Constructivist Foundations 11(2): 370–374. http://constructivist.info/11/2/370
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.