Notes

You are going to help me resolve the comments made by my professor on an essay to improve it. Below is the essay in question. After this message, I will send you quotes along with the comment, and you will instruct me on how to best address the comment. Here is the essay:

Bridging the Consciousness Gap: Heterophenomenology and its Critics
Introduction
Many consider the human mind to be the true final frontier. Exploring it has long been considered a challenging expedition, and the debate over what Daniel Dennett calls "heterophenomenology" is a crucial discussion that may revolutionize how we study and understand consciousness. Traditionally, phenomenology has used first-person methods to study consciousness. In contrast, heterophenomenology uses third-person methods to build a "bridge" between internally subjective experiences and externally objective analysis. However, in their book The Phenomenological Mind, skeptics such as Gallagher and Zahavi have leveled numerous criticisms against the theory. Thus, this paper will fully outline heterophenomenlogy by examining the key arguments offered by Daniel Dennett in favor of heterophenomenology and the criticisms offered by Gallagher and Zahavi against it. Lastly, as a result of this analysis, we intend to evaluate the efficacy of heterophenomenology in the study of consciousness and its implications for our understanding of phenomenology. Dennett's Approach
While objectivity has been cited as an essential element of the natural sciences, the tests used in the study of consciousness and cognition frequently depend on humans' subjective experiences and perceptions, making objectivity challenging. As
Dennett puts it, "First-person science of consciousness is a discipline with no methods, no data, no results, no future, no promise. It will remain a fantasy" (Gallagher and Zahavi 15). Dennett contends instead that heterophenomenology can serve as "the bridge – between the subjectivity of human consciousness and the natural sciences" (Dennett 249). In essence, the reports from human subjects are the data, not the reports' actual contents (Gallagher and Zahavi 19). The way Dennett attempts to accomplish this alleged objectivity is by ensuring that "the physical side of the bridge...be anchored in conservative physics (and biology): no morphic resonances, vitalistic vibrations, [or] hitherto unidentified force fields...are to be introduced without a thorough articulation and defense" (Dennett 249).
Building on his defense of heterophenomenology as a link between consciousness and the natural sciences, Dennett describes turning subjective reports into valuable data. However, this process requires interpretation. It necessitates adopting the 'intentional stance,' a viewpoint that considers beliefs, desires, and intentions to be central to interpreting behavior. Dennett refutes the notion that this position is entirely subjective by advocating for explicit interpretation norms that guarantee intersubjective consensus. This method enables the identification and management of anomalies and applies rationality as a variable presupposition.
Consequently, given the nature of heterophenomenology, its proponents are neutral regarding the actual existence of conscious phenomena. Instead, they analyze reports that claim to describe conscious experiences instead of investigating the conscious phenomena themselves (Gallagher and Zahavi 19). Dennett advocates a stance of neutrality because, in his view, our access to our own mental experiences is

fallible, and false positives and negatives are possible. Furthermore, false beliefs regarding our conscious states are a reality, and certain psychological processes occur without our awareness. Therefore, the heterophenomenological approach refrains from evaluating the truthfulness of the subject's conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are authentic or fictitious.
Criticisms
Gallagher and Zahavi, however, have refuted Dennett's view of third-person phenomenology. They contend that Dennett's approach indulges in its own form of fantasy - the illusion of wholly separating empirical investigation from the first-person perspective. They argue that heterophenomenology's interpretations of first-person accounts are invariably based on the scientist's personal experiences or allegedly objective categories that derive from everyday understanding or a less rigorous form of common sense (Gallagher and Zahavi 20). In addition, they argue that scientific practice invariably presupposes the scientist's own pre-scientific world experience (Gallagher and Zahavi 20). This view emphasizes the inextricable connection between the personal experiences of scientists and their scientific interpretations. By emphasizing this argument, Gallagher and Zahavi cast doubt on Dennett's claim that the study of consciousness requires a strictly third-person perspective. There is no genuine third-person perspective in their view, just as there is no view from nowhere (Gallagher and Zahavi 20). This critique highlights the inherent subjectivity of any attempt to understand consciousness, even if made in the name of objectivity.

Implications
Dennett's theory of heterophenomenology induces a radical shift, making consciousness open to empirical and objective examination. This method does, however, raise significant philosophical and realistic concerns. If a third-party perspective can examine consciousness, it could signify a level of scientific precision that is unprecedented in a field typically viewed as largely subjective. Conversely, if the critics are correct and all attempts to comprehend consciousness inherently involve a degree of subjectivity, the heterophenomenological method could be ineffective. Thus, the ongoing discourse compels us to reevaluate not only our understanding of consciousness but also the subjectivity and objectivity boundaries within cognitive science. This shift in perspective may have far-reaching effects, affecting not only academic debate but also our overall grasp of the human psyche.
Works Cited
D.C. Dennett, Heterophenomenology reconsidered, Phenomenology and the Cognitive
Sciences. 6 (2007) 247–270. doi:10.1007/s11097-006-9044-9. S. Gallagher, D. Zahavi, The Phenomenological Mind, 2007.

Do you understand?