Fathoming the Depth of Awareness

Abstract Neil Mehta puts forward a pluralist theory of conscious perception, on which to consciously perceive is to deploy not just one, but two distinct kinds of sensory awareness in concert. Here I present three reservations regarding one of these kinds awareness - deep awareness. First, Mehta introduces deep awareness as a relation whose deployment explains the putative fact that conscious states unerringly reveal to us a substantial portion of the essences of sensory quality universals (“revelation” and “infallibility” theses). I both undermine a part of Mehta’s defense of revelation and infallibility, and argue that revelation is false. Second, the main theoretical purpose for which Mehta introduces deep awareness is to explain the presence of hard problems of consciousness. Mehta calls this explanation “the E theory”. I argue that this theory is false. Third, a central upshot of Mehta’s theory of deep awareness is that to have an experience in which you are deeply aware of a universal U is to have an experience whose phenomenal character is partly constituted by U. I argue that this is false.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophia
Published
2025-12-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-025-00932-8
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fathoming the Depth of Awareness

Ori Beck
Philosophia
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
article

Fathoming the Depth of Awareness

Ori Beck
article en

Abstract

Abstract Neil Mehta puts forward a pluralist theory of conscious perception, on which to consciously perceive is to deploy not just one, but two distinct kinds of sensory awareness in concert. Here I present three reservations regarding one of these kinds awareness - deep awareness. First, Mehta introduces deep awareness as a relation whose deployment explains the putative fact that conscious states unerringly reveal to us a substantial portion of the essences of sensory quality universals (“revelation” and “infallibility” theses). I both undermine a part of Mehta’s defense of revelation and infallibility, and argue that revelation is false. Second, the main theoretical purpose for which Mehta introduces deep awareness is to explain the presence of hard problems of consciousness. Mehta calls this explanation “the E theory”. I argue that this theory is false. Third, a central upshot of Mehta’s theory of deep awareness is that to have an experience in which you are deeply aware of a universal U is to have an experience whose phenomenal character is partly constituted by U. I argue that this is false.

Philosophia
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.