Also, the mysterious bells of a sunken kingdom rising from below the waves... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bel...

Thanks Moritz! Not quite -- though it depends on exactly what counts as access. Our results suggest people *can* report (and so, arguably, are aware of) more than they *do* report under traditional ("Did you see anything unusual?") questioning. So, their awareness corresponds to accessible info.

and also merely apparent absence...

And it may not be slow. The work from Dahan cited suggests otherwise: "information from speech has an immediate influence while enabling later-arriving information to modulate initial hypotheses". psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-... (also: Allopenna et al. 1998, Dahan et al. 2001).

It's def a nice example! Though ofc one needn't posit a single speed across e.g. visual object detection & categorical speech perception, so unclear how one should generalize if speech does turn out to be slow.

But... perhaps we can escape the impasse by considering neural evidence; expanding our diet of examples from vision to speech processing; & integrating metacognitive measures into current paradigms (e.g., royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...)? Excited to see all the commentaries & replies! 3/3

Again, we have an example of the methodological puzzle of phenomenal consciousness: diff. theories make "identical behavioural predictions, only differing in an as-yet-unconstrained assumption about which... representations are consciously experienced". royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/... 2/3

A pleasure to engage with such a rich paper, and excited to see all the other commentaries as they come out! 3/3

I argue that postdiction is quite consistent with fast but initially partial and unsettled perception. Must such rapid and revisable perception overflow cognitive access? That's not obvious -- there's evidence access can be fleeting too! Nor is it clearly empirically objectionable if it does. 2/3