Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
Skip to main content

Philosophical discussion of explanation in perceptual science commonly focuses on the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’ which emphasizes the lack of an explanation of phenomenal facts in neurological and computational accounts of the brain. But here I want to look at some cases where theorists purport to have explanations of some aspects of our experience. The real puzzle here, I want to suggest, is not rejecting the purported explanations, but finding an appropriate setting for why they count as explanations.