Response to Rosenthal and Weisberg

Abstract

I described an incoherence in one form of the higher order thought (HOT) theory that derives from its holding both that an appropriate higher order thought is sufficient for a conscious state and that being the object of an appropriate higher order thought is necessary for a conscious state. A (1) lone and (2) unconscious (i.e. not the object of another HOT) and (3) “empty” (i.e. reference-failing) higher order thought at t determines a conscious state at t, but – contrary to the necessary condition – there is no thought at t about that conscious state – unless the lone thought is about itself. But such self-reference would collapse the HOT theory into the rival same-order theory. As I noted in the article, this incoherence...