ABSTRACT
In the course of addressing the issues of intentionality and phenomenal consciousness, Loar has embraced three commitments: physicalism about the mental; the existence of a first-person, narrow form of intentional content; and the absence of an a priori connection between descriptions of physical phenomena and mental phenomena. I show how maintaining all three leads to problems that Loar acknowledges and attempts to solve through his appeal to phenomenal concepts and the idea of phenomenal intentionality. I argue that his reconciliation of these three doesn’t really work in the end and suggest an alternative approach.
