...
首页> 外文期刊>Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences >Reflexive monism versus complementarism: An analysis and criticism of the conceptual groundwork of Max Velmans’s reflexive model of consciousness
【24h】

Reflexive monism versus complementarism: An analysis and criticism of the conceptual groundwork of Max Velmans’s reflexive model of consciousness

机译:反身一元论与互补论:对马克斯·费尔曼斯反身意识模型的概念基础的分析和批评

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

From 1990 on, the London psychologist Max Velmans developed a novel approach to (phenomenal) consciousness according to which an experience of an object is phenomenologically identical to an object as experienced. On the face of it I agree; but unlike Velmans I argue that the latter should be understood as comparable, not to a Kantian, but rather to a noematic ‘phenomenon’ in the Husserlian sense. Consequently, I replace Velmans’s reflexive model with a complementaristic approach in a strict sense which leaves no room for either monistic or dualistic views (including Velmans’s ontological monism and his dual-aspect interpretation of complementarity) and hence requires us to radically reinterpret the concept of psychophysical causation.
机译:从1990年开始,伦敦心理学家马克斯·韦尔曼斯(Max Velmans)开发出一种新颖的(现象)意识方法,根据该方法,对象的体验在现象学上与所体验的对象在现象学上是相同的。表面上我同意;但是与维尔曼斯不同,我认为后者应该被理解为可比,而不是康德式的,而是与胡塞尔人意义上的带有意味的“现象”可比的。因此,在严格意义上,我用互补主义的方法代替了维尔曼斯的反身模型,这使得一元论或二元论的观点都没有余地(包括维尔曼斯的本体论一元论及其对互补性的双重解释),因此要求我们从根本上重新解释心理物理学的概念。因果关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号