Login
Jackendoff, R. (2000). Unconscious, Yes; Homunculus,???: Commentary by Ray Jackendoff. Neuropsychoanalysis, 2:17-20.

Welcome to PEP Web!

Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.

If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.

If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.

Username:
Password:

Can't remember your username and/or password? If you have forgotten your username and/or password please click here and log in to the PaDS database. Once there you need to fill in your email address (this must be the email address that PEP has on record for you) and click "Send." Your username and password will be sent to this email address within a few minutes. If this does not work for you please contact your group organizer.

Athens or federation user? Login here.

Not already a subscriber? Order a subscription today.

(2000). Neuropsychoanalysis, 2:17-20

Unconscious, Yes; Homunculus,???: Commentary by Ray Jackendoff

Ray Jackendoff Author Information

In “The Unconscious Homunculus” and other works, Francis Crick and Christof Koch make an admirable case for attempting to discover the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). As they observe, their research complements rather than supplants the sort of work I have done on what might be called the representational correlates of consciousness—the formal organization of the computations and data structures that the NCC instantiates neurally. And I am of course gratified that my work has played a role in their thinking. I will offer here four brief reactions to their paper.

Methodology

In their conclusion, Crick and Koch say, It cannot be overstated that Chalmers's hard problem of consciousness is unlikely to yeild to a purely logical or philosophical attack. I can certainly endorse this. They continue: Rather, it needs to be approached in a reductionist, scientific manner. This must be construed with care. If a “reductionist, scientific manner” is meant to exclude every approach but neuroscience, I would disagree. I think the problem needs to be approached from every possible front. There is still plenty of room in this field for careful introspection, for philosophical analysis and thought experiments, for traditional psychological and psychophysical experiments, for computational theory and computational simulation. There is no question that neuroscience brings new and important tools to the task, and that these tools

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2014, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. Help | About | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Problem

WARNING! This text is printed for the personal use of the subscriber to PEP Web and is copyright to the Journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to copy, distribute or circulate it in any form whatsoever.