Grounding, Conceivability, and the Mind-Body Problem

This paper challenges the soundness of the two-dimensional conceivability argument against the derivation of phenomenal truths from physical truths in light of a hyperintensional regimentation of the ontology of consciousness. The regimentation demonstrates how ontological dependencies between truths about consciousness and about physics cannot be witnessed by epistemic constraints, when the latter are recorded by the conceivability—i.e., the epistemic possibility—thereof. Generalizations and other aspects of the philosophical significance of the hyperintensional regimentation are further examined

Grounding, Conceivability, and the Mind-Body Problem

This paper challenges the soundness of the two-dimensional conceivability argument against the derivation of phenomenal truths from physical truths (cf. Chalmers, 1996; 2010) in light of a hyperintensional regimentation of the ontology of consciousness. The regimentation demonstrates how ontological dependencies between truths about consciousness and about physics cannot be witnessed by epistemic constraints, when the latter are recorded by the conceivability -- i.e., the epistemic possibility -- thereof. Generalizations and other aspects of the philosophical significance of the hyperintensional regimentation are further examined

Grounding, Conceivability, and the Mind-Body Problem

This paper challenges the soundness of the two-dimensional conceivability argument against the derivation of phenomenal truths from physical truths (cf. Chalmers in The conscious mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996; The character of consciousness, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) in light of a hyperintensional regimentation of the ontology of consciousness. The regimentation demonstrates how ontological dependencies between truths about consciousness and about physics cannot be witnessed by epistemic constraints, when the latter are recorded by the conceivability—i.e., the epistemic possibility—thereof. Generalizations and other aspects of the philosophical significance of the hyperintensional regimentation are further examined

Normativity all the way down: from normative realism to pannormism

In this paper, I provide an argument for pannormism, the view according to which there are normative properties all the way down. In particular, I argue for what I call the trickling down principle, which says that if there is a metaphysically basic normative property, then, if whatever instantiates it has a ground, that ground instantiates it as well

Repenser l’argument de la concevabilité pour le dualisme dans la philosophie de l’esprit

In the philosophical literature on consciousness and the mind-body problem, the conceivability argument against physicalism is usually taken to support a form of dualism between physicality and phenomenality. Usually, the discussion focuses on the qualitative character of experience, which is what the phenomenal feel of a given experience is like. By contrast, the subjective character of experience, or its individuation to a given first-person subject, tends to be set aside. The aim of this paper is to present a new and more robust version of the conceivability argument for dualism that appeals to the subjective character of experience. Drawing on insights by philosophers in the phenomenological tradition, I conceptualise the first-person subjective character of experience as a transcendental condition of possibility for phenomenality that cannot be reduced to third-person facts about the physical world. Given this, the mind-body problem as it pertains to consciousness does not merely concern the inability of the set of physical facts about a brain state to capture the qualitative character of experience, but concerns the existential issue of why this brain state is accompanied by first-person subjectivity at all. This allows us to reconceive the conceivability argument in a way that presents a stronger case for dualism than the traditional version of the argument.U filozofskoj literaturi o svijesti i problemu odnosa uma i tijela, argument pojmljivosti protiv fizikalizma obično se uzima kao podrška obliku dualizma između fizikalnosti i fenomenalnosti. Obično se rasprava usredotočuje na kvalitativni karakter iskustva, što je fenomenalni osjećaj određenog iskustva. Nasuprot tome, subjektivni karakter iskustva – tj. njegova individuacija danom subjektu u prvom licu – nastoji se ostaviti po strani. Cilj je ovog rada predstaviti novu i snažniju verziju argumenta pojmljivosti za dualizam koji se poziva na subjektivni karakter iskustva. Oslanjajući se na uvide filozofa u fenomenološkoj tradiciji, konceptualiziram subjektivni karakter iskustva u prvom licu kao transcendentalni uvjet mogućnosti fenomenalnosti koji se ne može svesti na činjenice trećeg lica o fizičkom svijetu. S obzirom na to, problem uma i tijela koji se odnosi na svijest ne tiče se samo nemogućnosti skupa fizičkih činjenica o stanju mozga da uhvati kvalitativni karakter iskustva nego i egzistencijalnog pitanja o tome zašto je to stanje mozga uopće popraćeno subjektivnošću prvog lica. To nam omogućuje da ponovno zamislimo argument pojmljivosti na način koji predstavlja jaču argumentaciju za dualizam od tradicionalne verzije argumenta.In der philosophischen Literatur zum Bewusstsein und dem Leib-Seele-Problem, wird das Argument der Vorstellbarkeit gegen den Physikalismus gewöhnlich als Unterstützung einer Form des Dualismus zwischen Physikalität und Phänomenalität genommen. Üblicherweise ist die Diskussion auf den qualitativen Charakter der Erfahrung fokussiert, welches das phä nomenale Gefühl einer bestimmten Erfahrung ist. Im Gegensatz dazu, wird der subjektive Charakter der Erfahrung, beziehungsweise ihre Individualisierung dem gegebenen erste-Person-Subjekt, oft beiseite gelassen. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist eine neue und robustere Version des Arguments der Vorstellbarkeit für den Dualismus zu präsentieren, die an den subjektiven Charakter der Erfahrung appelliert. Aufgrund der Einsichten der Philosophen der phänomenologischen Tradition, konzipiere ich den subjektiven Charakter der Ehrfahrung in erster Person als eine transzendentale Möglichkeitsbedingung für die Phänomenalität, die sich nicht auf Fakten einer dritten Person über die physische Welt reduzieren lässt. Angesichts dessen, betrifft das Leib-Seele-Problem, das sich auf das Bewusstsein bezieht, nicht nur die Unfähigkeit der Reihe physischer Fakten zum Gehirnzustand, den qualitatieven Charakter der Erfahrung zu erfassen, sondern auch die existentielle Frage, warum überhaupt dieser Gehirnzustand von der Subjektivität der ersten Person begleitet wird. Dies ermöglicht uns, das Argument der Vorstellbarkeit neu zu denken, und zwar auf die Art, die eine stärkere Argumentation als die traditionelle Version des Arguments für den Dualismus präsentiert.Dans la littérature philosophique sur la conscience et la relation corps-esprit, l’argument de la concevabilité contre le physicalisme est généralement utilisé pour soutenir une forme de dualisme entre la physicalité et la phénoménalité. Généralement, la discussion se concentre sur le caractère qualitatif de l’expérience, ce qui est le sentiment phénoménal d’une expérience donnée. En revanche, le caractère subjectif de l’expérience ou son individuation à un sujet donné à la première personne, tend à être mis de côté. L’objectif de ce travail est de présenter une nouvelle et rigoureuse version de l’argument de la concevabilité pour le dualisme qui fait appel au caractère subjectif de l’expérience. En m’inspirant de théories philosophiques issues de la tradition phénoménologique, je conceptualise le caractère subjectif de l’expérience à la première personne en tant que condition transcendantale de la possibilité de phénoménalité qui ne peut être réduit aux faits relatifs au monde physique vécus à la troisième personne. Compte tenu de cela, le problème de l’esprit et du corps qui se rapporte à la conscience ne concerne pas seulement l’incapacité de l’ensemble des faits physique relatifs à l’état du cerveau capable de saisir le caractère qualitatif de l’expérience, mais touche au problème existentiel de savoir pourquoi cet état du cerveau est, par ailleurs, accompagné par la subjectivité de la première personne. Cela nous permet de repenser l’argument de la concevabilité d’une manière qui présente une argumentation plus solide pour le dualisme que les arguments mis en avant par la version traditionnelle

Repenser l’argument de la concevabilité pour le dualisme dans la philosophie de l’esprit

In the philosophical literature on consciousness and the mind-body problem, the conceivability argument against physicalism is usually taken to support a form of dualism between physicality and phenomenality. Usually, the discussion focuses on the qualitative character of experience, which is what the phenomenal feel of a given experience is like. By contrast, the subjective character of experience, or its individuation to a given first-person subject, tends to be set aside. The aim of this paper is to present a new and more robust version of the conceivability argument for dualism that appeals to the subjective character of experience. Drawing on insights by philosophers in the phenomenological tradition, I conceptualise the first-person subjective character of experience as a transcendental condition of possibility for phenomenality that cannot be reduced to third-person facts about the physical world. Given this, the mind-body problem as it pertains to consciousness does not merely concern the inability of the set of physical facts about a brain state to capture the qualitative character of experience, but concerns the existential issue of why this brain state is accompanied by first-person subjectivity at all. This allows us to reconceive the conceivability argument in a way that presents a stronger case for dualism than the traditional version of the argument.U filozofskoj literaturi o svijesti i problemu odnosa uma i tijela, argument pojmljivosti protiv fizikalizma obično se uzima kao podrška obliku dualizma između fizikalnosti i fenomenalnosti. Obično se rasprava usredotočuje na kvalitativni karakter iskustva, što je fenomenalni osjećaj određenog iskustva. Nasuprot tome, subjektivni karakter iskustva – tj. njegova individuacija danom subjektu u prvom licu – nastoji se ostaviti po strani. Cilj je ovog rada predstaviti novu i snažniju verziju argumenta pojmljivosti za dualizam koji se poziva na subjektivni karakter iskustva. Oslanjajući se na uvide filozofa u fenomenološkoj tradiciji, konceptualiziram subjektivni karakter iskustva u prvom licu kao transcendentalni uvjet mogućnosti fenomenalnosti koji se ne može svesti na činjenice trećeg lica o fizičkom svijetu. S obzirom na to, problem uma i tijela koji se odnosi na svijest ne tiče se samo nemogućnosti skupa fizičkih činjenica o stanju mozga da uhvati kvalitativni karakter iskustva nego i egzistencijalnog pitanja o tome zašto je to stanje mozga uopće popraćeno subjektivnošću prvog lica. To nam omogućuje da ponovno zamislimo argument pojmljivosti na način koji predstavlja jaču argumentaciju za dualizam od tradicionalne verzije argumenta.In der philosophischen Literatur zum Bewusstsein und dem Leib-Seele-Problem, wird das Argument der Vorstellbarkeit gegen den Physikalismus gewöhnlich als Unterstützung einer Form des Dualismus zwischen Physikalität und Phänomenalität genommen. Üblicherweise ist die Diskussion auf den qualitativen Charakter der Erfahrung fokussiert, welches das phä nomenale Gefühl einer bestimmten Erfahrung ist. Im Gegensatz dazu, wird der subjektive Charakter der Erfahrung, beziehungsweise ihre Individualisierung dem gegebenen erste-Person-Subjekt, oft beiseite gelassen. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist eine neue und robustere Version des Arguments der Vorstellbarkeit für den Dualismus zu präsentieren, die an den subjektiven Charakter der Erfahrung appelliert. Aufgrund der Einsichten der Philosophen der phänomenologischen Tradition, konzipiere ich den subjektiven Charakter der Ehrfahrung in erster Person als eine transzendentale Möglichkeitsbedingung für die Phänomenalität, die sich nicht auf Fakten einer dritten Person über die physische Welt reduzieren lässt. Angesichts dessen, betrifft das Leib-Seele-Problem, das sich auf das Bewusstsein bezieht, nicht nur die Unfähigkeit der Reihe physischer Fakten zum Gehirnzustand, den qualitatieven Charakter der Erfahrung zu erfassen, sondern auch die existentielle Frage, warum überhaupt dieser Gehirnzustand von der Subjektivität der ersten Person begleitet wird. Dies ermöglicht uns, das Argument der Vorstellbarkeit neu zu denken, und zwar auf die Art, die eine stärkere Argumentation als die traditionelle Version des Arguments für den Dualismus präsentiert.Dans la littérature philosophique sur la conscience et la relation corps-esprit, l’argument de la concevabilité contre le physicalisme est généralement utilisé pour soutenir une forme de dualisme entre la physicalité et la phénoménalité. Généralement, la discussion se concentre sur le caractère qualitatif de l’expérience, ce qui est le sentiment phénoménal d’une expérience donnée. En revanche, le caractère subjectif de l’expérience ou son individuation à un sujet donné à la première personne, tend à être mis de côté. L’objectif de ce travail est de présenter une nouvelle et rigoureuse version de l’argument de la concevabilité pour le dualisme qui fait appel au caractère subjectif de l’expérience. En m’inspirant de théories philosophiques issues de la tradition phénoménologique, je conceptualise le caractère subjectif de l’expérience à la première personne en tant que condition transcendantale de la possibilité de phénoménalité qui ne peut être réduit aux faits relatifs au monde physique vécus à la troisième personne. Compte tenu de cela, le problème de l’esprit et du corps qui se rapporte à la conscience ne concerne pas seulement l’incapacité de l’ensemble des faits physique relatifs à l’état du cerveau capable de saisir le caractère qualitatif de l’expérience, mais touche au problème existentiel de savoir pourquoi cet état du cerveau est, par ailleurs, accompagné par la subjectivité de la première personne. Cela nous permet de repenser l’argument de la concevabilité d’une manière qui présente une argumentation plus solide pour le dualisme que les arguments mis en avant par la version traditionnelle

Russellian Monism and Mental Causation

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.According to Russellian monism, consciousness is constituted at least partly by quiddities: intrinsic properties that categorically ground dispositional properties described by fundamental physics. If the theory is true, then consciousness and such dispositional properties are closely connected. But how closely? The contingency thesis says that the connection is contingent. For example, on this thesis the dispositional property associated with negative charge might have been categorically grounded by a quiddity that is distinct from the one that actually grounds it. Some argue that Russellian monism entails the contingency thesis and that this makes its consciousness‐constituting quiddities epiphenomenal—a disastrous outcome for a theory that is motivated partly by its prospects for integrating consciousness into physical causation. We consider two versions of that argument, a generic version and an intriguing version developed by Robert J. Howell, which he bases on Jaegwon Kim's well‐known “exclusion argument.” We argue that neither succeeds.Peer reviewe

The Turing Test and the Zombie Argument

In this paper I shall try to put some implications concerning the Turing's test and the so-called Zombie arguments into the context of philosophy of mind. My intention is not to compose a review of relevant concepts, but to discuss central problems, which originate from the Turing's test - as a paradigm of computational theory of mind - with the arguments, which refute sustainability of this thesis. In the first section (Section I), I expose the basic computationalist presuppositions; by examining the premises of the Turing Test (TT) I argue that the TT, as a functionalist paradigm concept, underlies the computational theory of mind. I treat computationalism as a thesis that defines the human cognitive system as a physical, symbolic and semantic system, in such a manner that the description of its physical states is isomorphic with the description of its symbolic conditions, so that this isomorphism is semantically interpretable. In the second section (Section II), I discuss the Zombie arguments, and the epistemological-modal problems connected with them, which refute sustainability of computationalism. The proponents of the Zombie arguments build their attack on the computationalism on the basis of thought experiments with creatures behaviorally, functionally and physically indistinguishable from human beings, though these creatures do not have phenomenal experiences. According to the consequences of these thought experiments - if zombies are possible, then, the computationalism doesn't offer a satisfying explanation of consciousness. I compare my thesis from Section 1, with recent versions of Zombie arguments, which claim that computationalism fails to explain qualitative phenomenal experience. I conclude that despite the weaknesses of computationalism, which are made obvious by zombie-arguments, these arguments are not the last word when it comes to explanatory force of computationalism