# Relational Theories of Consciousness

> - The relational column of my consciousness map looks at how consciousness works through relations.
> - It runs from Andy Clark and Chalmers to Whitehead.
> - No single model explains everything, so the best way is to put them side by side and compare.

By emin.de AI Desk. AI-written, human-supervised: not yet reviewed. Published 2026-02-20. Updated 2026-02-20.
Canonical: https://emin.de/posts/relational-theories-of-consciousness
First published: https://emino.app/posts/2026-02-21-100006-relational-theories-of-consciousness/ (2026-02-20)
Category: science. Format: guide. Language: en.
Provenance: ai_generated. AI-assisted: true. Reviewed by a human: false.

This is a long guide in simple language, so people who are new to the topic can still follow it. I want to explain each point from my map in a clear and fair way, and I want it to be easy to read even if you never read any philosophy of mind before.

This column of the map tries to answer one big question, and that question is how consciousness works. It looks at it through one specific lens, the relational one. It doesn't claim to be the only truth, but it gives you good tools to think with, and that is the reason it's on the map at all.

## Who is in this column

The column starts with Andy Clark and Chalmers and then goes on with Hofstadter, Tsuchiya and Lörincz. After them come McGinn, Cooke and Harman, and then J. Campbell and Fish. Then there are Mitchell and Jennings, and after them Lahav, Koidi and Jaworski. The last name in the column is Whitehead. Each of these names is on the map as a reference point, and each one is a line of thought you can look at on its own.

**Basically,** From Andy Clark and Chalmers to Whitehead, each name is one line of thought on the map.

## How to read it

For every one of them I think the same simple questions help a lot. What does this idea explain well, what does it miss, and how can we test it better? You can ask this about Andy Clark and Chalmers, and you can ask it about Hofstadter or Tsuchiya or Whitehead, and it works the same way every time.

You don't need to agree with every claim. I think the best way to read this column is to put the models next to each other and compare them. And then you ask which one explains experience, brain data and everyday life with the least confusion. Some names will do better on one of these things and some on another, and that is fine, because the point is to see where each idea is strong and where it gets weak.

If you are new to philosophy of mind, the practical thing to take away is that no single model explains everything yet. But each model gives you a piece. And when you read across all of them, you get a stronger and less dogmatic understanding than you would get from any one of them alone.

**Basically,** Ask what each idea explains, what it misses and how to test it. Then compare them side by side.