Daniel Stoljar
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195306583
- eISBN:
- 9780199786619
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195306589.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This book advances a novel way to resolve the central philosophical problem about the mind: how it is that consciousness or experience fits into a larger naturalistic picture of the world. The ...
More
This book advances a novel way to resolve the central philosophical problem about the mind: how it is that consciousness or experience fits into a larger naturalistic picture of the world. The correct response to the problem, it is argued, is not to posit a realm of experience distinct from the physical, nor to deny the reality of phenomenal experience, nor even to rethink our understanding of consciousness and the language we use to talk about it. Instead, we should view the problem itself as having its origin in our ignorance of the relevant physical facts. This change of orientation is shown to be well motivated historically, empirically, and philosophically, and to have none of the side effects it is sometimes thought to have. The result is a philosophical perspective on the mind that has a number of far-reaching consequences: for consciousness studies, for our place in nature, and for the way we think about the relationship between philosophy and science.Less
This book advances a novel way to resolve the central philosophical problem about the mind: how it is that consciousness or experience fits into a larger naturalistic picture of the world. The correct response to the problem, it is argued, is not to posit a realm of experience distinct from the physical, nor to deny the reality of phenomenal experience, nor even to rethink our understanding of consciousness and the language we use to talk about it. Instead, we should view the problem itself as having its origin in our ignorance of the relevant physical facts. This change of orientation is shown to be well motivated historically, empirically, and philosophically, and to have none of the side effects it is sometimes thought to have. The result is a philosophical perspective on the mind that has a number of far-reaching consequences: for consciousness studies, for our place in nature, and for the way we think about the relationship between philosophy and science.
Stephen Yablo
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199266463
- eISBN:
- 9780191709111
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266463.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This book presents a collection of twelve essays which together constitute a modern-day examination of Cartesian themes in the metaphysics of mind. The book offers penetrating discussions of such ...
More
This book presents a collection of twelve essays which together constitute a modern-day examination of Cartesian themes in the metaphysics of mind. The book offers penetrating discussions of such topics as the relation between the mental and the physical, mental causation, the possibility of disembodied existence, the relation between conceivability and possibility, varieties of necessity, and issues in the theory of content arising out of the foregoing. The collection represents almost all of this book's author's work on these topics, and features one previously unpublished piece.Less
This book presents a collection of twelve essays which together constitute a modern-day examination of Cartesian themes in the metaphysics of mind. The book offers penetrating discussions of such topics as the relation between the mental and the physical, mental causation, the possibility of disembodied existence, the relation between conceivability and possibility, varieties of necessity, and issues in the theory of content arising out of the foregoing. The collection represents almost all of this book's author's work on these topics, and features one previously unpublished piece.
Daniel Stoljar
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195306583
- eISBN:
- 9780199786619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195306589.003.intro
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
The main position to be defended and debated in this book — called “the epistemic view” — can be stated by first formulating a hypothesis about our epistemic situation that the author calls “the ...
More
The main position to be defended and debated in this book — called “the epistemic view” — can be stated by first formulating a hypothesis about our epistemic situation that the author calls “the ignorance hypothesis”, which says that we are ignorant of a type of non-experiential truth relevant to the nature of experience. In the light of this hypothesis, the epistemic view says, first that if the ignorance hypothesis is true, the problem of experience or consciousness is solved, and, second, that the view is true. The reader is also introduced to the example of the slugs and tiles — the main aid to thought in the book.Less
The main position to be defended and debated in this book — called “the epistemic view” — can be stated by first formulating a hypothesis about our epistemic situation that the author calls “the ignorance hypothesis”, which says that we are ignorant of a type of non-experiential truth relevant to the nature of experience. In the light of this hypothesis, the epistemic view says, first that if the ignorance hypothesis is true, the problem of experience or consciousness is solved, and, second, that the view is true. The reader is also introduced to the example of the slugs and tiles — the main aid to thought in the book.
Daniel Stoljar
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195306583
- eISBN:
- 9780199786619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195306589.003.0002
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
The problem to be discussed is the logical problem of experience, which focuses on three inconsistent theses: there are experiential truths; if there are experiential truths, every truth is entailed ...
More
The problem to be discussed is the logical problem of experience, which focuses on three inconsistent theses: there are experiential truths; if there are experiential truths, every truth is entailed by, or supervenes on, some non-experiential truth; and if there are experiential truths, not every truth is entailed by, or supervenes on, some non-experiential truth. This problem is distinguished from two others: the empirical problem and the traditional mind-body problem.Less
The problem to be discussed is the logical problem of experience, which focuses on three inconsistent theses: there are experiential truths; if there are experiential truths, every truth is entailed by, or supervenes on, some non-experiential truth; and if there are experiential truths, not every truth is entailed by, or supervenes on, some non-experiential truth. This problem is distinguished from two others: the empirical problem and the traditional mind-body problem.
Daniel Stoljar
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195306583
- eISBN:
- 9780199786619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195306589.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter discusses the idea that it is mistaken to suppose that there is a genuinely philosophical problem of experience at all. According to one version of the challenge, the problem should be ...
More
This chapter discusses the idea that it is mistaken to suppose that there is a genuinely philosophical problem of experience at all. According to one version of the challenge, the problem should be rejected on methodological grounds: it is mistaken to reason from conceivability to possibility at all. It is argued that this reasoning is ubiquitous in philosophy, and thus to the extent that there is a problem here it is everyone’s rather than the author’s. According to another version of the challenge, the problem should be rejected on conceptual grounds: the thesis of physicalism certainly made sense at a particular moment in the history of science, but that moment is long gone and contemporary interpretations of it do not permit the questions typical of philosophy of mind to be legitimately raised. Physicalism and related concepts play an illustrative or inessential role, rather than an essential role, in the logical problem, and once this is appreciated, the basis for skepticism evaporates.Less
This chapter discusses the idea that it is mistaken to suppose that there is a genuinely philosophical problem of experience at all. According to one version of the challenge, the problem should be rejected on methodological grounds: it is mistaken to reason from conceivability to possibility at all. It is argued that this reasoning is ubiquitous in philosophy, and thus to the extent that there is a problem here it is everyone’s rather than the author’s. According to another version of the challenge, the problem should be rejected on conceptual grounds: the thesis of physicalism certainly made sense at a particular moment in the history of science, but that moment is long gone and contemporary interpretations of it do not permit the questions typical of philosophy of mind to be legitimately raised. Physicalism and related concepts play an illustrative or inessential role, rather than an essential role, in the logical problem, and once this is appreciated, the basis for skepticism evaporates.
Daniel Stoljar
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- September 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780195306583
- eISBN:
- 9780199786619
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195306589.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter presents the view that the supervenience of the experiential on the non-experiential is irreducibly a posteriori — the a posteriori entailment view. The main problem for this view ...
More
This chapter presents the view that the supervenience of the experiential on the non-experiential is irreducibly a posteriori — the a posteriori entailment view. The main problem for this view emerges when we notice that Kripke, the philosopher who did most to make it prominent, also considered and rejected it. The lesson of Kripke’s discussion on this point is that the mere idea of a posteriori entailment does not solve the problem of experience, and therefore that a proponent of the a posteriori entailment view is obliged to add further material. On the other hand, an examination of what this further material might be yields the result that either the a posteriori entailment view has no answer to the arguments, or else collapses into the epistemic view.Less
This chapter presents the view that the supervenience of the experiential on the non-experiential is irreducibly a posteriori — the a posteriori entailment view. The main problem for this view emerges when we notice that Kripke, the philosopher who did most to make it prominent, also considered and rejected it. The lesson of Kripke’s discussion on this point is that the mere idea of a posteriori entailment does not solve the problem of experience, and therefore that a proponent of the a posteriori entailment view is obliged to add further material. On the other hand, an examination of what this further material might be yields the result that either the a posteriori entailment view has no answer to the arguments, or else collapses into the epistemic view.
Christopher S. Hill
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199275731
- eISBN:
- 9780191706103
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0011
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
Cartesian modal arguments for property dualism presuppose that facts about the essential natures of pain and other qualitative properties can be grasped a priori by merely conceiving of them or ...
More
Cartesian modal arguments for property dualism presuppose that facts about the essential natures of pain and other qualitative properties can be grasped a priori by merely conceiving of them or imagining them. This chapter argues that this presupposition fails. It then proposes a theory of metaphysical necessity that in effect reduces it to the subjunctive conditional — to say that it is metaphysically necessary that p, it claims, is equivalent to saying that p would be the case no matter what else was the case. Using this theory of metaphysical necessity as a foundation, the chapter gives an account of how claims concerning metaphysical necessity can be known to be true. This account allows that such claims can, in many cases, be known a priori, but it implies that in many other cases, our grasp of them is a posteriori. The account sustains the criticisms of Cartesian modal arguments offered in the early sections of the chapter.Less
Cartesian modal arguments for property dualism presuppose that facts about the essential natures of pain and other qualitative properties can be grasped a priori by merely conceiving of them or imagining them. This chapter argues that this presupposition fails. It then proposes a theory of metaphysical necessity that in effect reduces it to the subjunctive conditional — to say that it is metaphysically necessary that p, it claims, is equivalent to saying that p would be the case no matter what else was the case. Using this theory of metaphysical necessity as a foundation, the chapter gives an account of how claims concerning metaphysical necessity can be known to be true. This account allows that such claims can, in many cases, be known a priori, but it implies that in many other cases, our grasp of them is a posteriori. The account sustains the criticisms of Cartesian modal arguments offered in the early sections of the chapter.
Roy Sorensen
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199275731
- eISBN:
- 9780191706103
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
A meta-conception is a hypothetical one. It answers a question by imagining someone (usually a more able conceiver) answering that question via an act of imagination. Thus, meta-conceptions stand to ...
More
A meta-conception is a hypothetical one. It answers a question by imagining someone (usually a more able conceiver) answering that question via an act of imagination. Thus, meta-conceptions stand to thought experiments as thought experiments stand to executed experiments. If conceivability entails possibility, then meta-conceiving entails possibility. Meta-conceptions would then work as well as thought experiments. But they do not work as well, giving fresh doubt about ‘Conceivability entails possibility’. Some of what passes for conceiving is really meta-conceiving, so these concerns affect modal epistemology. This chapter considers meta-conceptions as legitimate modes of inquiry but ranks them lower than thought experiments.Less
A meta-conception is a hypothetical one. It answers a question by imagining someone (usually a more able conceiver) answering that question via an act of imagination. Thus, meta-conceptions stand to thought experiments as thought experiments stand to executed experiments. If conceivability entails possibility, then meta-conceiving entails possibility. Meta-conceptions would then work as well as thought experiments. But they do not work as well, giving fresh doubt about ‘Conceivability entails possibility’. Some of what passes for conceiving is really meta-conceiving, so these concerns affect modal epistemology. This chapter considers meta-conceptions as legitimate modes of inquiry but ranks them lower than thought experiments.
Stephen Yablo
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199266463
- eISBN:
- 9780191709111
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266463.003.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter pursues two ideas. The first is that Descartes' argument cannot be faulted simply for relying on an inference from de re conceivability to de re possibility; that inference is implicated ...
More
This chapter pursues two ideas. The first is that Descartes' argument cannot be faulted simply for relying on an inference from de re conceivability to de re possibility; that inference is implicated in too many de re modal claims routinely accepted without qualm or question. So the standard objection needs refinement: even if some de re conceivability intuitions justify de re modal conclusions, others do not, and when the differences are spelled out, Descartes' argument emerges as unpersuasive. The second idea is that, to the contrary, the more the differences are spelled out, the better Descartes' argument looks.Less
This chapter pursues two ideas. The first is that Descartes' argument cannot be faulted simply for relying on an inference from de re conceivability to de re possibility; that inference is implicated in too many de re modal claims routinely accepted without qualm or question. So the standard objection needs refinement: even if some de re conceivability intuitions justify de re modal conclusions, others do not, and when the differences are spelled out, Descartes' argument emerges as unpersuasive. The second idea is that, to the contrary, the more the differences are spelled out, the better Descartes' argument looks.
Stephen Yablo
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199266463
- eISBN:
- 9780191709111
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266463.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter analyzes the Textbook Kripkeanism about conceivability and possibility. It argues that Textbook Kripkeanism is not right. The ‘good news’ that E's conceivability ensures its possibility ...
More
This chapter analyzes the Textbook Kripkeanism about conceivability and possibility. It argues that Textbook Kripkeanism is not right. The ‘good news’ that E's conceivability ensures its possibility whenever no obfuscating presentation suggests itself is too good to be true.Less
This chapter analyzes the Textbook Kripkeanism about conceivability and possibility. It argues that Textbook Kripkeanism is not right. The ‘good news’ that E's conceivability ensures its possibility whenever no obfuscating presentation suggests itself is too good to be true.
Stephen Yablo
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199266463
- eISBN:
- 9780191709111
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266463.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics/Epistemology
This chapter explores the role of actuality in modal judgments. It argues that Kripke's first great contribution to conceivability studies was to have seen the need for a technology of modal error ...
More
This chapter explores the role of actuality in modal judgments. It argues that Kripke's first great contribution to conceivability studies was to have seen the need for a technology of modal error detection in the first place. His second great contribution was to have made a start at developing this technology. There is no need to foist on him a third ‘contribution’ of identifying the one and only way modal illusions can arise.Less
This chapter explores the role of actuality in modal judgments. It argues that Kripke's first great contribution to conceivability studies was to have seen the need for a technology of modal error detection in the first place. His second great contribution was to have made a start at developing this technology. There is no need to foist on him a third ‘contribution’ of identifying the one and only way modal illusions can arise.
R. M. Sainsbury and Michael Tye
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199695317
- eISBN:
- 9780191738531
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695317.003.0008
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language
This chapter applies originalism to three further problems: the content of hallucinatory experience, the epistemic role of perception, and arguments against physicalism based on conceivability ...
More
This chapter applies originalism to three further problems: the content of hallucinatory experience, the epistemic role of perception, and arguments against physicalism based on conceivability (especially zombie-based arguments).Less
This chapter applies originalism to three further problems: the content of hallucinatory experience, the epistemic role of perception, and arguments against physicalism based on conceivability (especially zombie-based arguments).
Albert Casullo
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199777860
- eISBN:
- 9780199933525
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777860.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology, General
Christopher Hill contends that the metaphysical modalities can be reductively explained in terms of the subjunctive conditional and that this reductive explanation yields two tests for determining ...
More
Christopher Hill contends that the metaphysical modalities can be reductively explained in terms of the subjunctive conditional and that this reductive explanation yields two tests for determining the metaphysical modality of a proposition. He goes on to argue that his reductive account of the metaphysical modalities in conjunction with his account of modal knowledge underwrites the further conclusion that conceivability does not provide a reliable test for metaphysical possibility. I argue (1) that Hill's reductive explanation of the metaphysical modalities in terms of the subjunctive conditional does not yield a reductive explanation of knowledge of metaphysical modality in terms of knowledge of subjunctive conditionals, and (2) that his account of modal knowledge is at odds with his contention that conceivability does not provide epistemic access to metaphysical possibility.Less
Christopher Hill contends that the metaphysical modalities can be reductively explained in terms of the subjunctive conditional and that this reductive explanation yields two tests for determining the metaphysical modality of a proposition. He goes on to argue that his reductive account of the metaphysical modalities in conjunction with his account of modal knowledge underwrites the further conclusion that conceivability does not provide a reliable test for metaphysical possibility. I argue (1) that Hill's reductive explanation of the metaphysical modalities in terms of the subjunctive conditional does not yield a reductive explanation of knowledge of metaphysical modality in terms of knowledge of subjunctive conditionals, and (2) that his account of modal knowledge is at odds with his contention that conceivability does not provide epistemic access to metaphysical possibility.
David J. Chalmers
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195311105
- eISBN:
- 9780199870851
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311105.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
This chapter is mainly devoted to the conceivability argument against materialism, viewed through the lens of the two-dimensional semantic framework. The key issue is whether conceivability entails ...
More
This chapter is mainly devoted to the conceivability argument against materialism, viewed through the lens of the two-dimensional semantic framework. The key issue is whether conceivability entails metaphysical possibility. The key opponent is the type-B materialist, who denies the entailment. Many objections and putative counterexamples to the conceivability-possibility thesis have been mooted: the chapter discusses fifteen or so putative counterexamples, along with ten or so objections of other sorts to the conceivability argument. It also sketches a positive grounding for the sort of modal rationalism that drives the conceivability argument.Less
This chapter is mainly devoted to the conceivability argument against materialism, viewed through the lens of the two-dimensional semantic framework. The key issue is whether conceivability entails metaphysical possibility. The key opponent is the type-B materialist, who denies the entailment. Many objections and putative counterexamples to the conceivability-possibility thesis have been mooted: the chapter discusses fifteen or so putative counterexamples, along with ten or so objections of other sorts to the conceivability argument. It also sketches a positive grounding for the sort of modal rationalism that drives the conceivability argument.
Walter Ott
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199570430
- eISBN:
- 9780191722394
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570430.003.0026
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology, Philosophy of Science
Among Hume's most famous arguments, we find his own version of Malebranche's “no necessary connection” argument: roughly, if x had the power to produce y, it should be impossible to conceive of x ...
More
Among Hume's most famous arguments, we find his own version of Malebranche's “no necessary connection” argument: roughly, if x had the power to produce y, it should be impossible to conceive of x without y. But since it is always possible to do this, there cannot be any real (mind‐independent) causal connections. This chapter shows how the argument comes into focus only when seen as an episode in the larger argument from nonsense. Although the conception of causation as logical necessitation, which forms the target of Hume's argument, has its source in the scholastics, it lives on in the cognitive and geometrical models. The chapter shows just how Hume's argument applies to these models and points toward Hume's own subjective account of necessity as the felt determination of the mind to form one perception on the basis of another.Less
Among Hume's most famous arguments, we find his own version of Malebranche's “no necessary connection” argument: roughly, if x had the power to produce y, it should be impossible to conceive of x without y. But since it is always possible to do this, there cannot be any real (mind‐independent) causal connections. This chapter shows how the argument comes into focus only when seen as an episode in the larger argument from nonsense. Although the conception of causation as logical necessitation, which forms the target of Hume's argument, has its source in the scholastics, it lives on in the cognitive and geometrical models. The chapter shows just how Hume's argument applies to these models and points toward Hume's own subjective account of necessity as the felt determination of the mind to form one perception on the basis of another.
Robert Kirk
- Published in print:
- 2005
- Published Online:
- February 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199285488
- eISBN:
- 9780191603150
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199285489.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind
The definition of zombies is clarified, and the main arguments for the alleged possibility of zombies are examined. The ‘conceivability argument’ is influential: zombies are conceivable; whatever is ...
More
The definition of zombies is clarified, and the main arguments for the alleged possibility of zombies are examined. The ‘conceivability argument’ is influential: zombies are conceivable; whatever is conceivable is possible; therefore zombies are possible. Chalmers’s arguments for conceivability are given special attention, notably his use of Block’s homunculus-head; the apparent gap between physical information and facts about experiences; Jackson’s ‘knowledge argument’; and the argument from the ‘absence of analysis’. It is argued that none of the arguments is conclusive.Less
The definition of zombies is clarified, and the main arguments for the alleged possibility of zombies are examined. The ‘conceivability argument’ is influential: zombies are conceivable; whatever is conceivable is possible; therefore zombies are possible. Chalmers’s arguments for conceivability are given special attention, notably his use of Block’s homunculus-head; the apparent gap between physical information and facts about experiences; Jackson’s ‘knowledge argument’; and the argument from the ‘absence of analysis’. It is argued that none of the arguments is conclusive.
Robert J. Howell
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- September 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199654666
- eISBN:
- 9780191753091
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654666.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Metaphysics/Epistemology
Howell argues that the options in the debates about consciousness and the mind–body problem are more limited than many philosophers have appreciated. Unless one takes a hard-line stance, which either ...
More
Howell argues that the options in the debates about consciousness and the mind–body problem are more limited than many philosophers have appreciated. Unless one takes a hard-line stance, which either denies the data provided by consciousness or makes a leap of faith about future discoveries, one must admit that no objective picture of our world can be complete. Howell argues, however, that this is consistent with physicalism, contrary to received wisdom. After developing a novel, neo-Cartesian notion of the physical, followed by a careful consideration of the three major anti-materialist arguments—Black’s “Presentation Problem”, Jackson’s Knowledge Argument, and Chalmers’ Conceivability Argument—Howell proposes a “Subjective Physicalism” which gives the data of consciousness their due, while retaining the advantages of a monistic, physical ontology.Less
Howell argues that the options in the debates about consciousness and the mind–body problem are more limited than many philosophers have appreciated. Unless one takes a hard-line stance, which either denies the data provided by consciousness or makes a leap of faith about future discoveries, one must admit that no objective picture of our world can be complete. Howell argues, however, that this is consistent with physicalism, contrary to received wisdom. After developing a novel, neo-Cartesian notion of the physical, followed by a careful consideration of the three major anti-materialist arguments—Black’s “Presentation Problem”, Jackson’s Knowledge Argument, and Chalmers’ Conceivability Argument—Howell proposes a “Subjective Physicalism” which gives the data of consciousness their due, while retaining the advantages of a monistic, physical ontology.
Dominic Gregory
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199565818
- eISBN:
- 9780191722004
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565818.003.0015
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology, Logic/Philosophy of Mathematics
Why do we tend to ascribe possibility to what we can imagine? One strategy for answering that question involves the thought that, just as sensory episodes often involve its seeming to us as though ...
More
Why do we tend to ascribe possibility to what we can imagine? One strategy for answering that question involves the thought that, just as sensory episodes often involve its seeming to us as though the world is certain ways, so imaginings involve its seeming to us that what we have imagined is possible. This chapter argues that while some imaginings do feature appearances of possibility, very many others do not; and it explores the broader relevance of its conclusions for modal epistemology.Less
Why do we tend to ascribe possibility to what we can imagine? One strategy for answering that question involves the thought that, just as sensory episodes often involve its seeming to us as though the world is certain ways, so imaginings involve its seeming to us that what we have imagined is possible. This chapter argues that while some imaginings do feature appearances of possibility, very many others do not; and it explores the broader relevance of its conclusions for modal epistemology.
Joseph Almog
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195146462
- eISBN:
- 9780199833054
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195146468.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, History of Philosophy
This book articulates and defends Descartes's dual key project: the separation of human mind and body as distinct substances and their integration into a single human being. The central challenge ...
More
This book articulates and defends Descartes's dual key project: the separation of human mind and body as distinct substances and their integration into a single human being. The central challenge faced by Descartes's dualism is the prove too much/prove too little dilemma: too keen a separation of mind and body gets in the way of reuniting them into a full bloodied real human subject, whereas emphasizing the primality of the full human being is not enough to preserve the distinctness of mind and body as separate complete substances.The book approaches the Cartesian project in two stages. The first stage concerns the nature of the real distinction between mind and body. The first chapter examines the conceivability arguments that give Descartes's dualism its epistemological bite. The arguments from possibility, conceivability and whatness (or essence) deploy structurally similar considerations to establish the numerical and existential distinction of mind and body. Throughout this book it is assumed that mind and body necessarily coexist. The reconstruction of the real distinction between mind and body respects the assumption of modal inseparability by representing a sense of separate existence weaker than the genuine possibility of disjointed existence. The quest is for conceivable coherent stories depicting the existence of mind without body that, though not really possible, are nevertheless consistent with what the mind is. Conceivability and possibility are mediated by essence, which is responsible for providing the conceptual ‘fix’ on the entity that survives through conceivability scenarios. Essence is understood in conceivability‐free terms: it takes precedence over what is genuinely conceivable of a given item.At the second stage of the Cartesian conception of man, the challenge posed by the mind/body integration into a single human being is to preserve the four major assumptions that emerge out of the discussion of real distinction: (i) complete subjecthood, (ii) modal inseparability, (iii) conceivable existential separability, (iv) whatness (essence) separability. The question concerns the embedding of the mind and body into the real human being whose mind and body they are. Satisfying the demands of the second stage requires changing the conception of essence in (iv) whatness separability from generic essence (mind as ‘thinking thing’, body as ‘extended thing’) to robust essence (the mind's essence consists of being the mind of a man, similarly for body). This is done by contrasting a classical, separatist dualist reading of Descartes's project with an integrationist dualist interpretation. The merits of integrationist dualism over the eventually rejected separatist dualism concern its ability to deal with the problem of real subjecthood, endurance and change in time. The core of the integrationist approach is the primacy of the human being, in terms of which both the existence/identity conditions and the essence of mind/body are given. A categorical conception of substance is sketched, in contrast to an existential conception of substance as ability to exist on its own.By the end of the second chapter, the conception of generic essence has been scrapped. The operative conception is one of robust essences, weaved around the specific human being to whom mind and body belong by their nature. This move recommends the revisiting of the ‘real distinction’ presented in the first chapter. According to that conception, whatness‐consistency is the basis for conceivability claims about mind/body distinctness. The robust notion of essence answers to the problem of ‘conceivability illusions’ such as the apparent conceiving of disembodied minds and mind‐man swaps. This perspective allows the appraisal of the ability of integrative dualism to handle the prove too much/prove too little dilemma. It is argued that integrative dualism safeguards the interdependence of mind, body, and man without levelling over the status of mind and body as distinct complete substances. The dilemma is thus rendered innocuous. The book concludes with a final look at Descartes’d primal question (‘what am I?’) and raises the question of the logical form of such what‐am‐I assertions.Beyond the question of Descartes, this book argues for a particular kind of metaphysics dealing in full bloodied enduring objects rather than ontological abstractions sub species aeternitate. Existence in time and resistance to reduction/definition are the marks of the real subject of metaphysics. Properly conducted metaphysical enquiry should explore the nature, essence, and being though time of unstinted real entities antecedently given in the ordinary world. The order of investigation dictates the blueprints for conceivability: the question of what may be conceived of each real subject is subsequent to the determination of what the real subject is.Less
This book articulates and defends Descartes's dual key project: the separation of human mind and body as distinct substances and their integration into a single human being. The central challenge faced by Descartes's dualism is the prove too much/prove too little dilemma: too keen a separation of mind and body gets in the way of reuniting them into a full bloodied real human subject, whereas emphasizing the primality of the full human being is not enough to preserve the distinctness of mind and body as separate complete substances.
The book approaches the Cartesian project in two stages. The first stage concerns the nature of the real distinction between mind and body. The first chapter examines the conceivability arguments that give Descartes's dualism its epistemological bite. The arguments from possibility, conceivability and whatness (or essence) deploy structurally similar considerations to establish the numerical and existential distinction of mind and body. Throughout this book it is assumed that mind and body necessarily coexist. The reconstruction of the real distinction between mind and body respects the assumption of modal inseparability by representing a sense of separate existence weaker than the genuine possibility of disjointed existence. The quest is for conceivable coherent stories depicting the existence of mind without body that, though not really possible, are nevertheless consistent with what the mind is. Conceivability and possibility are mediated by essence, which is responsible for providing the conceptual ‘fix’ on the entity that survives through conceivability scenarios. Essence is understood in conceivability‐free terms: it takes precedence over what is genuinely conceivable of a given item.
At the second stage of the Cartesian conception of man, the challenge posed by the mind/body integration into a single human being is to preserve the four major assumptions that emerge out of the discussion of real distinction: (i) complete subjecthood, (ii) modal inseparability, (iii) conceivable existential separability, (iv) whatness (essence) separability. The question concerns the embedding of the mind and body into the real human being whose mind and body they are. Satisfying the demands of the second stage requires changing the conception of essence in (iv) whatness separability from generic essence (mind as ‘thinking thing’, body as ‘extended thing’) to robust essence (the mind's essence consists of being the mind of a man, similarly for body). This is done by contrasting a classical, separatist dualist reading of Descartes's project with an integrationist dualist interpretation. The merits of integrationist dualism over the eventually rejected separatist dualism concern its ability to deal with the problem of real subjecthood, endurance and change in time. The core of the integrationist approach is the primacy of the human being, in terms of which both the existence/identity conditions and the essence of mind/body are given. A categorical conception of substance is sketched, in contrast to an existential conception of substance as ability to exist on its own.
By the end of the second chapter, the conception of generic essence has been scrapped. The operative conception is one of robust essences, weaved around the specific human being to whom mind and body belong by their nature. This move recommends the revisiting of the ‘real distinction’ presented in the first chapter. According to that conception, whatness‐consistency is the basis for conceivability claims about mind/body distinctness. The robust notion of essence answers to the problem of ‘conceivability illusions’ such as the apparent conceiving of disembodied minds and mind‐man swaps. This perspective allows the appraisal of the ability of integrative dualism to handle the prove too much/prove too little dilemma. It is argued that integrative dualism safeguards the interdependence of mind, body, and man without levelling over the status of mind and body as distinct complete substances. The dilemma is thus rendered innocuous. The book concludes with a final look at Descartes’d primal question (‘what am I?’) and raises the question of the logical form of such what‐am‐I assertions.
Beyond the question of Descartes, this book argues for a particular kind of metaphysics dealing in full bloodied enduring objects rather than ontological abstractions sub species aeternitate. Existence in time and resistance to reduction/definition are the marks of the real subject of metaphysics. Properly conducted metaphysical enquiry should explore the nature, essence, and being though time of unstinted real entities antecedently given in the ordinary world. The order of investigation dictates the blueprints for conceivability: the question of what may be conceived of each real subject is subsequent to the determination of what the real subject is.
Timothy Williamson
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199565818
- eISBN:
- 9780191722004
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565818.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology, Logic/Philosophy of Mathematics
This chapter argues that claims of possibility and necessity are equivalent to claims involving counterfactual conditionals, and uses the equivalences to derive basic principles of modal logic within ...
More
This chapter argues that claims of possibility and necessity are equivalent to claims involving counterfactual conditionals, and uses the equivalences to derive basic principles of modal logic within the logic of counterfactuals. The derivations employ weaker assumptions than corresponding derivations by Lewis and Stalnaker. They still use the principle that all counterpossibles (counterfactual conditionals with impossible antecedents) are vacuously true, but this principle is defended. The account is extended to quantified modal logic; de re modalities are equivalent to de re counterfactuals, which are usually considered unproblematic. An application is suggested to the epistemology of modality: the role of conceivability and inconceivability in the evaluation of claims of possibility and impossibility, rather than being regarded as problematically sui generic, should be treated as a special case of the role of the imagination in the evaluation of counterfactual conditionals, which is commonplace even for mundane, highly contingent counterfactuals.Less
This chapter argues that claims of possibility and necessity are equivalent to claims involving counterfactual conditionals, and uses the equivalences to derive basic principles of modal logic within the logic of counterfactuals. The derivations employ weaker assumptions than corresponding derivations by Lewis and Stalnaker. They still use the principle that all counterpossibles (counterfactual conditionals with impossible antecedents) are vacuously true, but this principle is defended. The account is extended to quantified modal logic; de re modalities are equivalent to de re counterfactuals, which are usually considered unproblematic. An application is suggested to the epistemology of modality: the role of conceivability and inconceivability in the evaluation of claims of possibility and impossibility, rather than being regarded as problematically sui generic, should be treated as a special case of the role of the imagination in the evaluation of counterfactual conditionals, which is commonplace even for mundane, highly contingent counterfactuals.
