Side by side

Compare all views

Twenty-five views of the mind, answering the same four questions. Filter by group, or read down a column to see where the real disagreements lie.

Pills show each view's verdict on two key questions: is phenomenal consciousness real, and could a machine have a mind?
ViewWhat is the mind?Is phenomenal consciousness real?Could a machine have a mind?Is there a hard problem?
DennettWhat the brain does: a pattern of functions.noNot as philosophers define it: an illusion produced by the brain.yesIn principle, if it does what we do.No. The Hard Question instead: and then what happens?
FrankishBrain processes, including introspective self-models.noIntrospection misrepresents quasi-phenomenal properties.yesWith the right organisation.Replaced by the illusion problem.
HumphreyBrain processes, including a self-sustaining sensory loop.a showReal as a show the brain stages: "phenomenal surrealism".yesIf built with an ipsundrum.A puzzle solved by evolution, not new physics.
GrazianoBrain processes, including models of itself.noIt is how the attention schema depicts attention.yesGive it an attention schema.No: an engineering question.
HofstadterPatterns of symbols, including a strange loop that models itself.a patternReal as a high-level pattern; the solid "I" is the loop seen from inside.yesWith the right patterns, and real analogy-making.No: consciousness comes with self-reference.
Joscha BachSoftware: a model of the world containing a model of a person.virtualReal inside the simulation, not in the physics.yesConscious machines may not be far off.No: it dissolves when levels are kept apart.
The ChurchlandsNeural network activity, described by neuroscience.no qualiaExperience is real; qualia as a category are not.yesIf it computes as brains do.No: ignorance, not a gap.
AristotleThe form of a living body: its capacities.n/aNo inner show: perception is bodily activity.noOnly living bodies have souls.No: like asking if wax and its stamp are one.
DescartesA thinking substance, distinct from the body.yesThought is the one thing we cannot doubt.noNo machine could use language flexibly.The interaction problem.
LeibnizA simple substance whose activity is perception.yesPerception is fundamental to reality.noA machine is a composite.Yes: the mill.
HumeA bundle of perceptions.yesImpressions are the data; the self is doubtful.openNot his question.What unites the bundle, he admitted, was too hard.
HuxleyConsciousness produced by the brain's machinery.yesBut with no effects: the steam whistle.yesWe already are conscious machines.Yes: as unaccountable as Aladdin's Djin.
RyleAbilities and dispositions shown in behaviour.noThe inner theatre is a category mistake.openNothing rules it out.No: misused mental words.
TuringBest replaced by a test of behaviour.openNo double standard for machines.yesExpected by about 2000.Need not be solved to answer his question.
Place and SmartEach kind of sensation is a kind of brain process.yesSensations are real, and are brain processes.noOnly with brain-like processes.No: an identity, like lightning.
PutnamA system of functional states.yesPain is real, and is a functional state.yesWith the right organisation.Not in 1967.
NagelA subjective point of view.yesThere is something it is like.openWe cannot tell.Yes: we lack the concepts.
SearleA biological product of the brain's causal powers.yesThe appearance is the reality.noNot by running a program.A scientific problem, not a mystery.
Jackson (1982)Physical processes plus epiphenomenal qualia.yesMary learns something. He later recanted.openNot addressed.Yes: physical knowledge is incomplete.
BlockFunctional for thought; experience may need biology.yesDistinct from access, and may overflow it.doubtfulThe China brain gives reason to doubt.Yes.
SethA predictive brain regulating a living body.yesReal; explain its features.doubtfulConsciousness may require life.Set aside for the real problem.
ChalmersFunctions plus fundamental experience.yesA datum.yesFunctional duplicates would be conscious.Yes. He named it.
GoffA complex form of matter's intrinsic consciousness.yesCertain, and everywhere.openDepends on the combination problem.Swapped for the combination problem.
PopperAn evolved World 2 that interacts with the brain and links it to World 3.yesReal, and causally effective.doubtfulDescribing and arguing outrun physical theory.Open; interactionism offered as a conjecture.
DeutschKnowledge-creating software running on the brain.yesQualia are real and still unexplained.yesUniversality of computation makes AGI possible.Unsolved: awaits a theory of creativity.

Timeline

Key works in the philosophy of mind, from Aristotle to today c. 350 BCAristotle 1641Descartes 1714Leibniz 1739Hume 1874Huxley 1949Ryle 1950Turing 1956–59 Place, Smart 1967 Putnam 1974Nagel 1978–82Block, Searle, Jackson 1991Dennett, Consciousness Explained 1995 Chalmers 2016Frankish, Dennett 1977 Popper 2019–22Goff, Seth, Humphrey, Deutsch
Not to scale: the gap between Aristotle and Descartes is nearly two thousand years. The marks show each thinker's key work discussed on this site.