The Super Justification Argument for Phenomenal Transparency

ABSTRACT In Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, Philip Goff argues that the case against physicalist views of consciousness turns on ‘Phenomenal Transparency’, roughly the thesis that phenomenal concepts reveal the essential nature of phenomenal properties. This paper considers the argument that Goff offers for Phenomenal Transparency. The key premise is that our introspective judgments about current conscious experience are ‘Super Justified’, in that these judgments enjoy an epistemic status comparable to that of simple mathematical judgments, and a better epistemic status than run of the mill perceptual judgments. After presenting the key ideas in the ‘Super Justification Argument’, I distinguish two Super Justification theses, which vary according to the kind of introspective judgments that they take to be Super Justified. I argue that Goff’s case requires ‘Strong Super Justification’, according to which a wide range of introspective judgments about conscious experience are Super Justified. Unfortunately, it turns out that Strong Super Justification is implausible and not well-supported by examples. In contrast, a weaker Super Justification thesis does not require anything like Phenomenal Transparency and, indeed, can be explained by physicalistic accounts of phenomenal concepts

Truthmaking and the Mysteries of Emergence

The concept of truthmaking, the idea that when a statement is true, there is typically something about the world in virtue of which it is true, has garnered much interest in recent metaphysics. Often, the motivation has been the thought that truthmaking can provide a new perspective on an important issue. This paper evaluates the claim that truthmaking can play a substantive role in defining an unproblematic notion of emergence. For despite playing an important role in philosophical discourse over the past 100 years, it has often been thought that there is something mysterious about the notion of emergence. It has recently been argued, however, that once emergent properties are characterized as those that, while “ontologically dependent” are yet needed as truthmakers emergence and emergent properties prove unproblematic. In response, I argue that there is reason to doubt that truthmaking can play an important role in formulating an unproblematic yet recognizable notion of emergence. I argue that it is consistent with truthmaking being unable to play a substantive role in emergentism that truthmaking can play a more significant role in characterizing an attractive middle ground between reductive and nonreductive physicalism

Russellian Physicalism, Bare Structure, and Swapped Inscrutables

This paper discusses and evaluates a recent argument for the conclusion that an attractive variety of Russellian monism ought to be regarded as a form of physicalism. According to this line of thought, if the Russellian’s “inscrutable” properties are held to ground not only experience, but also the physical structure of the world—and in this sense are not “experience-specific”—they thereby have an unproblematic place in physicalist metaphysics. I argue, in contrast, that there can be a sense in which the Russellian’s inscrutables are experience-specific in a way that a physicalist probably ought to find objectionable, even if they play some role other than grounding experience. This will be the case, I argue, if certain worlds are taken to be possible, as they sometimes have: worlds of “bare structure” and worlds with what might be called “swapped inscrutables”. In this way, I claim that accepting certain possibilities has consequences for how one should understand the nature of the Russellian’s inscrutables and the place they have in physicalist metaphysics

Extremal sequences of polynomial complexity

The joint spectral radius of a bounded set of $d \times d$ real matrices is defined to be the maximum possible exponential growth rate of products of matrices drawn from that set. For a fixed set of matrices, a sequence of matrices drawn from that set is called \emph{extremal} if the associated sequence of partial products achieves this maximal rate of growth. An influential conjecture of J. Lagarias and Y. Wang asked whether every finite set of matrices admits an extremal sequence which is periodic. This is equivalent to the assertion that every finite set of matrices admits an extremal sequence with bounded subword complexity. Counterexamples were subsequently constructed which have the property that every extremal sequence has at least linear subword complexity. In this paper we extend this result to show that for each integer $p \geq 1$, there exists a pair of square matrices of dimension $2^p(2^{p+1}-1)$ for which every extremal sequence has subword complexity at least $2^{-p^2}n^p$.Comment: 15 page

Phenomenal transparency and the transparency of subjecthood

According to phenomenal transparency, phenomenal concepts are transparent where a transparent concept is one that reveals the nature of that to which it refers. What is the connection between phenomenal transparency and our concept of a subject of experience? This paper focuses on a recent argument, due to Philip Goff, for thinking that phenomenal transparency entails transparency about subjecthood. The argument is premissed on the idea that subjecthood is related to specific phenomenal properties as a determinable of more specific determinates. I argue that the argument fails, which opens the door for one to endorse phenomenal transparency while denying transparency about the concept of a subject of experience. I draw out the consequences of this for certain versions of the combination problem for panpsychist metaphysics and moreover argue that rejecting the transparency of subjecthood does not undermine anti-physicalist arguments premissed on considerations relating to phenomenal transparency

Partisan Gerrymander Review After Rucho: Proof is in the Procedure

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the U.S. Supreme Court purported to end over three decades of partisan gerrymander review by the federal courts. I believe the Court’ s decision is problematic. Partisan gerrymandering distorts democratic governance through effects that have been increasingly documented, and it seems likely that those effects will compound and continue largely unabated absent the availability of federal judicial review. But my intent is not to argue against Rucho, rather to work within its parameters and overcome it. That means understanding the nature of the problem that the Court wrestled with, recognizing the Court’s structural concerns, and then tracing the limits of its reasoning. All of which, I believe, points to the procedural guarantee of the Due Process Clause as a plausible constitutional basis for reinvigorated federal judicial review of partisan gerrymandering challenges. By targeting identifiable groups for vote dilution, partisan gerrymandering functions more like adjudicatory acts rather than traditional legislative acts, and therefore may require additional procedural safeguards in connection with their adoption than the lawmaking process itself provides. Moreover, review of redistricting procedures and the formulation of corresponding safeguards, in contrast to substantive review of redistricting maps as has been done in the past, draws on the special competence of judges. Finally, procedural review does not shift the locus of redistricting authority but instead de-weaponizes it; it does not attempt to wrest control but only to formalize it. A judicial focus on redistricting procedures can thus limit and discipline review so as to prevent judicial overreach, a concern which has long troubled the Court, while at the same time checking the worst partisan redistricting abuses