hroughout the brain. It's not just that there is no big picture; there are no little pictures either. Brain events are part of the process, never the objects of experiencing. (An obvious exception, of course, is the case of a neuroscientist for whom brain events are themselves the objects of investigation.) One of the reasons for this error is an ambiguity in the notion of representation. In the philosophical tradition from Descartes to Kant, "representation" is a mental object, and it is in that sense of the term that Husserl attacks representations. In recent Cognitive Science, "representation" is a brain structure which in one way or another tracks something in the world. While Husserl knew nothing of Cognitive Science, he was fully aware of the fact that the body is involved in perception, so I doubt he would have had any objection to the notion of a brain-representation. His attack on representativism is not a repudiation of representations in the sense of brain-representations. What he objects to is any analysis of experience which would describe us as conscious of mind-representations rather than of objects in the world. Dennett's distinction between the representing and the represented, correct as it is, slurs the distinction between brain- and mind-representation so that it seems to make sense to ask whether a heterophenomenological report might "unwittingly" be about some event in the brain. But this is to treat the brain event as something represented that experience could be about. What the speaker is reporting, however, is an experience of something which presents itself, correctly or incorrectly, as, say, a moving light in the world. If there is a brain-representation involved, it is on the side of the representing process and is not an object represented to consciousness, a mind-representation. In rejecting representativism, Husserlian intentionality rejects the possibility that a brain-representation could be the object ...
