Abstract:Loorits (2014) identifies the solution to the hard problem of consciousness in the possibility of fully analyzing seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness in structural terms. However, research on consciousness conducted in recent decades has failed to bridge the explanatory gap between the brain and conscious mind. One reason why the explanatory gap cannot be filled, and consequently the problem remains hard, is that experience and neural structure are too different or "distant" to be directly compatible. Conversely, structural aspects of consciousness can be found in phenomenal experience. One possible alternative, therefore, is to seek the structure of seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness not in the neural substrate, but within consciousness itself, through a phenomenal analysis of the qualitative aspects of experience, starting from its simplest forms. An essential premise is to reformulate the explanandum of consciousness, which is usually attributed to qualia and what it is like to be in a certain state. However, these properties do not allow us to identify the fundamental aspects of phenomenal experience. Sensations such as the redness of red or the painfulness of pain are inseparable from the context of the experience to which they belong, making qualia appear as phenomenal artifacts. Furthermore, the simplest qualitative aspects can be found in early vision. They are involved in perceptual organization and necessarily have relational significance. The unitary set of qualities found in early vision—such as those related to being an object, background or detail—constitutes the explanandum of the simplest forms of consciousness and seems to imply a justifying structure. Although early vision is characterized by interdependent qualitative components that form a unitary whole, we cannot find in it the structure of seemingly non-structural aspects of consciousness. Phenomenal appearance alone does not seem sufficient to identify a unitary structure of consciousness. However, the closeness of these characteristics to a unitary structure prompts us to delve into less explored territory, using the components of experience also as possible explanans.

Replies to E. J. Green, Zoe Jenkin, and Jack Lyons

Perception's objects, border, and epistemic role: Comments on Christopher Hill's Perceptual experience

Perceptual Experience As a Bridge Between the Retina and a Bicoded Cognitive Map.

The Conceptual Content and Non-Conceptual Content of Perceptual Experience

Hill on perceptual contents, Thouless properties, and representational pluralism

Attention, consciousness, and the semantics of questions

Hill on perceptual relativity and perceptual error

Embodied Cognition and Perception: Dewey, Science and Skepticism

The importance of a consideration of qualia to imagery and cognition

Perception and Consciousness

A Rebuttal of Pylyshyn’ s Criticism of the “Continuity Thesis between Seeing and Thinking”

The Nature of Language and Cognition Interactions in Color Perception

Cognitive vision: The case for embodied perception

Visual art history and the psychology of perception: Perspectivism and its 20th century abandonment in the visual arts and in Gibson's ecological psychology

Aesthetics and the Limits of the Extended Mind

An Unavoidable Mind-Set Reversal: Consciousness in Vision Science

Approaching the nature of consciousness through a phenomenal analysis of early vision. What is the explanandum?

I see actions. Affordances and the expressive role of perceptual judgments

Inattentive Perception, Time, and the Incomprehensibility of Consciousness

Ecological approaches to perceptual learning: learning to perceive and perceiving as learning

Berkeley on Perception