Consciousness and inference to the best explanation: Compiling empirical evidence supporting the access-phenomenal distinction and the overflow hypothesis.

A new inference to the best explanation (IBE) process is proposed for comparing theories of consciousness based on empirical support. The process has four steps: Assimilate, Compile, Validate, and Compare. Most work so far has focused on assimilation. To demonstrate feasibility, the authors compile a complete collection of empirical evidence for the distinction between access consciousness (A-Consciousness) and phenomenal consciousness (P-Consciousness) and the overflow hypothesis. They also validate the interpretation of aphantasics' performance on retro-cue paradigms, which has been used to support the overflow hypothesis. This compilation is the first step toward enabling side-by-side comparisons of theories and the empirical phenomena they explain.

Study at a glance

Abstract

A tacit assumption in the field of consciousness studies is that the more empirical evidence a theory can explain, the better it fares when weighed against competitors. If one wants to take seriously the potential for empirical evidence to move forward debates in consciousness studies, there is a need to gather, organize, validate, and compare evidence. We present an inference to the best explanation (IBE) process on the basis of empirical support that is applicable in debates between competing theories of consciousness. Our proposed IBE process consists in four steps: Assimilate, Compile, Validate, and Compare. Until now, the vast majority of the work in the field has consisted in gathering empirical evidence for theories i.e., the assimilation step. To illustrate the feasibility of our proposed IBE process, and what it may look like when applied in practice, we deliver a complete collection (the compilation step) of empirical support for the distinction between A-Consciousness and P-Consciousness and the overflow hypothesis. Finally, we offer an example of the validation step, by scrutinizing the interpretation of aphantasics' performance on retro-cue paradigms offered in the literature in support of the overflow hypothesis. The compilation we deliver here is the first effort in the IBE process, the end result of which - hopefully - will be the ability of the research community to carry out side-by-side comparisons of theories and the empirical phenomena they claim to explain, i.e., the comparison step.