DOCSLIB.ORG

1 'There Are Two Explanatory Gaps' Dr Tom Mcclelland University Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 'There Are Two Explanatory Gaps' Dr Tom Mcclelland University Of ‘There are two explanatory gaps’ Dr Tom McClelland University of Glasgow 1 THERE ARE TWO EXPLANATORY GAPS ABSTRACT The explanatory gap between the physical and the phenomenal is at the heart of the Problem of Consciousness. I argue that the case in favour of there being an Explanatory Gap relies on an implicit appeal to (one or both of) two deeper conceptual gaps. The first of these pertains to the subjectivity of phenomenal consciousness, which is taken to be inexplicable in objective physical terms. The second pertains to the intrinsicality of the qualities that characterise phenomenally conscious states, which is taken to be inexplicable in structural physical terms. I argue that the credibility of the leading Anti-Physicalist arguments – the Conceivability Argument and the Knowledge Argument – is bound to the credibility of these two gaps. Consequently, the real litmus test for any Physicalist account of consciousness is whether it can successfully address both apparent gaps. 1. THE EXPLANATORY GAP Physicalists claim that phenomenal states are nothing more than certain physical states. Anti-Physicalists hold that there is an explanatory gap between the physical and the phenomenal, and that this explanatory gap entails metaphysical distinctness. In this paper I will consider what reasons there are for thinking that the explanatory gap is genuine. I will not comment on the case for Physicalism, nor on the Anti-Physicalist’s inference from an explanatory gap to metaphysical distinctness. I argue that the case in favour of the explanatory gap rests on an implicit appeal to (one or both of) a pair of deeper conceptual gaps, which I label ‘Tivity Gap’ and ‘Trinsicality Gap’ respectively. I will remain neutral on whether these two apparent gaps are genuine. My thesis is simply that there is a genuine explanatory gap only if at least one of these deeper gaps is genuine. I also argue that the credibility of the premiere Anti-Physicalist arguments – the Conceivability Argument (CA) and the Knowledge Argument (KA) – also depends on the credibility of these two gaps. I will begin by outlining how the explanatory gap is traditionally understood. I will then show how that formulation is limited, and why an appeal to the two deeper gaps is required. To advocate the explanatory gap is to hold that phenomenal consciousness is inexplicable in physical terms. I take it that a mental state is phenomenally conscious iff there is something it’s like to be in that mental state for its bearer. Phenomenal qualities – or ‘qualia’ – are all and only those features that characterise what it is like for a subject to be in a given phenomenal state. The property that every phenomenal state has, and which no non-phenomenal state has, is the property of there being something it’s like to be in that state for its subject. We can call this the subjectivity of phenomenal consciousness. But there can only be something it’s like to be in a mental state if there’s something in particular it’s like. We can call the particular way things are for the subject of a phenomenal state the qualitative character of that state. 2 What of the physical side of the explanatory gap? Defining ‘physical’ is a conceptual minefield, but there are two key features to note. First, physical properties are the kind of property revealed by science.1 Second, as a (debatable) matter of definition, physical properties are not phenomenal properties. If Physicalism is true, then phenomenal properties are ultimately nothing more than some special arrangement of non-phenomenal properties described by some ideal science. If the explanatory gap is genuine, there is no explanation of phenomenal properties in terms of physical properties. Interestingly, Levine’s (1983) original account of the explanatory gap involves two claims that are, to some extent, independent. He holds that there can be no explanation of why a given physical state should constitute a conscious experience at all, nor of why it should constitute an experience that feels that specific way for its subject. In my jargon, Levine is claiming that both the subjectivity and the qualitative character of phenomenal states are inexplicable in physical terms. CA and KA each provide vivid illustrations of the explanatory gap, and exploit that gap to justify the conclusion that Physicalism is false.2 According to CA, we can conceive of physical/functional duplicates of ourselves that differ from us phenomenally. If consciousness was explicable in physical terms, such beings would be inconceivable to us. According to KA, a subject who knows all the physical facts would not be able to deduce all the phenomenal facts. If consciousness was explicable in physical terms, such a subject would be able to infer the phenomenal truths from the physical truths. 2. SPLITTING THE EXPLANATORY GAP IN TWO There is an important challenge that might naturally be raised against the explanatory gap, and which invites parallel challenges to CA and KA. It is credible that we do not yet have an explanation of consciousness amenable to Physicalism. It may also be credible that we will never have such an explanation. But the explanatory gap makes the stronger claim that consciousness is inexplicable in physical terms; it is not merely that the physical explanation of consciousness is unavailable to beings like us, but rather that there is no such explanation. The gap would persist even for an epistemically ideal subject. What justifies this stronger claim? How do we know that the apparent explanatory gap is not merely a reflection of our (temporary or permanent) epistemic limitations? How do we know that the apparent gap would persist even for an ideal subject? Perhaps a subject with complete physico-functional knowledge and flawless inferential skills would not be able to conceive of physical duplicates that are not also phenomenal duplicates. Perhaps such a subject would be able to deduce the phenomenal facts from the physical facts.3 The standard response to this line of thought is to argue that more of the same won’t do. Any physico-functional information known by an ideal subject, and not by us, would 1 This is deliberately broad. Though more refined accounts are available, they do no accurately reflect the broad conception of ‘physical’ at work in discussions of the explanatory gap. 2 For the original formulation of KA see Jackson (1982) and for a useful formulation of CA see Chalmers (2002). 3 Here I assume that such an ideal subject would have a relevantly complete conceptual repertoire. The ‘Mary’ in Jackson’s original thought-experiment does not meet this criterion, though Stoljar’s (2005) ‘Experienced Mary’ might. 3 inevitably be the wrong kind of information to explain consciousness (Chalmers, 2002 pp. 258-9). We are not epistemically ideal subjects, but even from our limited position we might have a grip on what kind of knowledge an ideal subject would have, and so on whether such knowledge could possibly entail anything phenomenal. Of course, the plausibility of this move depends upon how the notion of ‘wrong kind’ is fleshed out. What is it about physical properties that guarantees no such properties could ever explain consciousness? It seems that only two serious answers have been given to the question, and in neither case has the dialectical significance of these answers properly been appreciated. Phenomenal states are essentially subjective while physical states are essentially objective. The term ‘subjective’ is particularly ambiguous, but the simple definition offered earlier in the paper captures the relevant sense. A state is subjective iff there’s something it’s like to be in that state for its subject. A state is then objective iff there is not anything it’s like to be in that state for its subject. Subjective states are those that involve an inside first- person point of view, while objective states are those that do not. There appears to be a principled conceptual gap between the objective and the subjective. It is not merely that the objective facts with which we are familiar are unsuited to the explanation of subjective awareness. Rather, objective information is simply the wrong kind of information to explain why there is something it’s like to be in a state, rather than nothing at all. Though a complete science may contain information radically different from what we find in current science, that information will still be exclusively objective (Nagel 1974, p. 527). I call this apparent conceptual chasm between the objective and the subjective the ‘Tivity Gap’.4 By citing the Tivity Gap, one can argue that the explanatory gap will inevitably remain for an ideal subject. Where the Tivity Gap pertains to the subjectivity of phenomenal states, the next gap pertains to their qualitative character. The qualities that characterise conscious experience are intrinsic properties. But physical properties, it is claimed, are essentially extrinsic/structural properties. Physics characterises fundamental physical entities structurally. It describes the spatiotemporal structure of entities – how those entities are located in spacetime. It also describes their causal properties, which ‘…are ultimately defined in terms of spaces of states that have a certain abstract structure…such that the states play a certain causal role with respect to other states’ (Chalmers, 2002, p. 258). Physics thus describes a rich web of relations between entities, but never reveals any non- structural properties. (Alter 2009, p. 760). Even an ideal physics will describe the world in purely structural terms. The qualities that characterise phenomenal consciousness are non-structural properties. A reddish quality stands in many relations, and has a specific location in the quality-space of all colour qualities. To describe the quality in terms of its relational profile, however, would be to miss out its essential nature – its redness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dialectic at a Moving Standstill: the Neurotic Midadventures Of
    Macalester Journal of Philosophy Volume 13 Article 6 Issue 1 Spring 2004 5-1-2004 Dialectic at a Moving Standstill: The eurN otic Midadventures of Philosphy of Mind Dan Ganin Macalester College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/philo Recommended Citation Ganin, Dan (2004) "Dialectic at a Moving Standstill: The eN urotic Midadventures of Philosphy of Mind," Macalester Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 13: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/philo/vol13/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Macalester Journal of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dialectic at a Moving Standstill: The Neurotic Misadventures of Philosophy of Mind Dan Ganin Introduction Relatively recently, numerous philosophers of mind have espoused the epistemic intractability and impenetrability of both the mind-body problem and the problem of consciousness. While past and present attempts to theoretically resolve and circumvent these metaphysical questions have assumed many forms and postulated numerous conceptual paradigms (substance dualism, property dualism, eliminative materi alism, functionalism, mind- body identity theory, logical behaviorism, idealism, etc.), the fundamental problem of epistemic inexplicability has not substantially dissipated since the rationalist ruminations of Descartes and Leibniz. The nascent articulatio n of the epistemological insolvability of the mind-body problem that has so gravely and garishly confronted contemporary theorists of mind can, in fact, be found in the philosophical work of these two notable modernist thinkers.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anthology of Philosophical Studies
    Introduction AN ANTHOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Edited by PATRICIA HANNA ADRIANNE L. MCEVOY PENELOPE VOUTSINA ATINER 2006 1 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies 2 Introduction Athens Institute for Education and Research 2006 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies Edited by Patricia Hanna Adrianne L. McEvoy Penelope Voutsina 3 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies PUBLISHED BY ATHENS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 14 Solomou Street, 10683 Athens, Greece Tel. +30 210 36.34.210 Fax +30 210.36.34.209 Email: [email protected] URL: www.atiner.gr This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the Athens Institute for Education and Research. First Published: 2006 ISBN: 978-960-6672-11-8 Typeset, printed and binding by Theta Co. 4 Introduction Table of Contents List of Contributors i Introduction 1 Voutsina, P. PART I EPISTEMOLOGY 1. Imagination in Descartes’ Skepticism 7 Scholl, A. 2. Descartes on Sensations and Ideas of Sensations 17 Cunning, D. 3. The Myth of Hume’s Compatibilism 33 Morris, E.W. 4. From Contextualism to Skepticism 43 Wilburn, R. 5. The Puzzle of Self-Knowledge 51 Voutsina, P. 6. Unconfined Rationality: A Normative yet Realistic Model of 59 Inference Morado, R. and Savion, L. PART II METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 7. Language as Community Property: What’s Wrong with 75 Chomsky’s Individualism? Hanna, P. 8. What do Concepts Consist of? The Role of Geometric and 93 Proprioceptive Information in Categorization Dellantonio, S. and Pastore, L.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology's
    Augsburg Honors Review Volume 12 Article 4 2019 Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Allison Mangan Augsburg University Follow this and additional works at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation Mangan, Allison (2019) "Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire," Augsburg Honors Review: Vol. 12 , Article 4. Available at: https://idun.augsburg.edu/honors_review/vol12/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate at Idun. It has been accepted for inclusion in Augsburg Honors Review by an authorized editor of Idun. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Allison Mangan Qualia, the Heart of the Mind-Body Problem and Epistemology’s Quagmire Alio Maga, Augbug Univesty ualia are layered and complex, the basic philosophic understanding a labyrinth of a concept, of qualia today. We will see how Q rife with debate as to their consciousness is necessary for qualia, existence, state, and what they mean and why this makes defning qualia for our understanding of knowledge, a challenge. Next, we will go over the relationship with the world, and explanatory gap of qualia. From there, ourselves. Toughtful exploration into we will see how qualia relate to the mind- the complexities of what qualia are body problem, and the early exploration and how they relate to the mind-body of this problem through Descartes, problem will be wrestled with though Locke, and Berkeley. Additionally, we research applied within this paper. will go over the main schools of thought Qualia can be found in philosophical that surround the mind-body problem: debates surrounding epistemology materialism, idealism, and dualism.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Consciousness? Integrated Information Vs. Inference
    entropy Article What Is Consciousness? Integrated Information vs. Inference James E. Cooke 1,2 1 Institute of Behavioural Neuroscience (IBN), University College London (UCL), London WC1H 0AP, UK; [email protected] 2 Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland Abstract: Any successful naturalistic account of consciousness must state what consciousness is, in terms that are compatible with the rest of our naturalistic descriptions of the world. Integrated Information Theory represents a pioneering attempt to do just this. This theory accounts for the core features of consciousness by holding that there is an equivalence between the phenomenal experience associated with a system and its intrinsic causal power. The proposal, however, fails to provide insight into the qualitative character of consciousness and, as a result of its proposed equivalence between consciousness and purely internal dynamics, into the intentional character of conscious perception. In recent years, an alternate group of theories has been proposed that claims consciousness to be equivalent to certain forms of inference. One such theory is the Living Mirror theory, which holds consciousness to be a form of inference performed by all living systems. The proposal of consciousness as inference overcomes the shortcomings of Integrated Information Theory, particularly in the case of conscious perception. A synthesis of these two perspectives can be reached by appreciating that conscious living systems are self-organising in nature. This mode of organization requires them to have a high level of integration. From this perspective, we can understand consciousness as being dependent on a system possessing non-trivial amounts of integrated information while holding that the process of inference performed by the system is the fact of consciousness itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Empfindungsfähigkeit Und Moralischer Status Eine Kritik Der Pathozentrischen Ethik
    Empfindungsfähigkeit und moralischer Status Eine Kritik der pathozentrischen Ethik Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie im Fachbereich A Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal vorgelegt von Erasmus Scheuer aus Düsseldorf Wuppertal, im Januar 2018 Die Dissertation kann wie folgt zitiert werden: urn:nbn:de:hbz:468-20180503-133904-3 [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ade%3Ahbz% 3A468-20180503-133904-3] alles bleibt wie es ist Geheimnis in einem Geheimnis Muster in einem Muster (Norbert Scheuer – Nichts) Meinen Eltern, Elvira und Norbert Scheuer Vorwort Der Pathozentrismus betrachtet die Leidens- oder Empfindungsfähigkeit aller, auch nichtmenschlicher Spezies als zentrales moralisches Kriterium. Diese Arbeit hat die pathozentrische Position zum Gegenstand und bewegt sich bewusst zwischen Kritik und Verteidigung eines solchen Ansatzes. Einerseits liegen die Schwächen des Pa- thozentrismus m.E. mehr oder weniger offen zu Tage, da die Kluft zwischen Empfin- dungen des Menschen und den Empfindungen anderer Spezies nur schwer inner- halb eines naturwissenschaftlich-physikalistischen Weltbildes überbrückbar erscheint. Andererseits vertrete ich als Verfasser dieser Arbeit die Ansicht, dass eine Erweiterung der Moralobjekte über die Menschen hinaus erfolgen muss, dass das Leiden anderer Kreaturen Teil einer jeden ethischen Betrachtung sein sollte. Der Pa- thozentrismus vertritt mit seinem Kriterium der Leidens- bzw. Empfindungsfähigkeit eine ethische Position, die vom Ansatz her eine Erweiterung der Moralobjekte an- strebt. Aus diesem Grund liegt meine Sympathie beim Pathozentristen. Infolgedes- sen versucht diese Arbeit, einerseits die Kritik am Pathozentrismus aufzuzeigen, an- dererseits dem Pathozentristen auch Argumente an die Hand zu geben, die es ihm erlauben, seine Position zu verteidigen. Der Pathozentrist hat nach meiner Ansicht zwei schwerwiegende und grundlegende Probleme, wenn er seine Ethik innerhalb eines tendenziell physikalistischen Weltbildes zu verteidigen sucht.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining an Explanatory Gap Gilbert Harman Princeton University
    Explaining an Explanatory Gap Gilbert Harman Princeton University Discussions of the mind-body problem often refer to an “explanatory gap” (Levine 1983) between some aspect of our conscious mental life and any imaginable objective physical explanation of that aspect. It seems that whatever physical account of a subjective conscious experience we might imagine will leave it completely puzzling why there should be such a connection between the objective physical story and the subjective conscious experience (Nagel 1974). What is the significance of this gap in understanding? Chalmers (1996) takes the existence of the gap to be evidence against physicalism in favor of some sort of dualism. Nagel (1974) and Jackson (1982, 1986) see it as evidence that objective physical explanations cannot account for the intrinsic quality of experience, although Jackson (1995, 1998, 2004) later changes his mind and comes to deny that there is such a gap. Searle (1984) argues that an analogous gap between the intrinsic intentional content of a thought or experience and any imaginable functionalist account of that content is evidence against a functionalist account of the intrinsic intentionality of thoughts. On the other hand, McGinn (1991) suggests that these explanatory gaps are due to limitations on the powers of human understanding—we are just not smart enough! A somewhat different explanation of the explanatory gap appeals to a difference, stressed by Dilthey (1883/1989) and also by Nagel (1974), between two kinds of understanding, objective and subjective. Objective understanding is characteristic of the physical sciences—physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and so on. Subjective understanding does not play a role in the physical sciences but does figure in ordinary psychological interpretation and in what Dilthey calls the “Geisteswissenschaften”—sciences of the mind broadly understood to include parts of sociology, economics, political theory, anthropology, literary criticism, history, and psychology, as well as ordinary psychological reflection.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Many-Worlds Theory of Consciousness Christian List* Abstract: This Paper Sketches a New and Somewhat Heterodox Metaphysica
    1 The many-worlds theory of consciousness Christian List* Discussion paper, this version posted 2 March 2021 Abstract: This paper sketches a new and somewhat heterodox metaphysical theory of consciousness: the “many-worlds theory”. It drops the assumption that all conscious subjects’ experiences are features of one and the same world and instead associates different subjects with different “first-personally centred worlds”. We can think of these as distinct “first- personal realizers” of a shared “third-personal world”, where the latter is supervenient, in a sense to be explained. This is combined with a form of modal realism, according to which different subjects’ first-personally centred worlds are all real, though only one of them is present for each subject. The theory offers a novel way of capturing the irreducibly subjective nature of conscious experience without lapsing into solipsism. The paper also looks at some scientific theories of consciousness, such as integrated information theory, through the proposed lens and reconsiders the hard problem of consciousness. 1. Introduction The aim of this paper is to sketch a somewhat heterodox metaphysical theory of consciousness: the “many-worlds theory”. The theory seeks to give an account of how consciousness, in the sense of subjective experience, fits into the world and how it relates to other, non-subjective features. To capture the irreducibly subjective nature of conscious experience, the theory drops the common assumption that all conscious experiences – yours, mine, and those of everyone else – are features of one and the same world and postulates instead that different conscious subjects are associated with different “first-personally centred worlds”.
    [Show full text]
  • Panpsychism's Combination Problem Is a Problem for Everyone
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Panpsychism’s combination problem is a problem for everyone∗ Angela Mendelovici [email protected] Penultimate draft Abstract The most pressing worry for panpsychism is arguably the combination problem, the problem of intelligibly explaining how the experiences of microphysical entities combine to form the experiences of macrophysical entities such as ourselves. This chapter argues that the combination problem is similar in kind to other problems of mental combination that are problems for everyone: the problem of phenomenal unity, the problem of mental structure, and the problem of new quality spaces. The ubiquity of combination problems suggests the ignorance hypothesis, the hypothesis that we are ignorant of certain key facts about mental combination, which allows the panpsychist to avoid certain objections based on the combination problem. 1 Introduction Panpsychism is the view that the phenomenal experiences of macrophysical items, like ourselves, are nothing over and above combinations of phenomenal ∗Mendelovici, Angela. (2019). Panpsychism’s Combination Problem Is a Problem for Everyone. In William Seager (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. London, UK: Routledge. 1 experiences of microphysical items, where the relevant modes of combination might include physical properties and relations.1 Most versions of the view can be seen as being motivated by the perceived failure of physicalism—the view that consciousness is nothing over and above some arrangement of (non-experiential) physical items—to provide an intelligible explanation of phenomenal conscious- ness, together with a desire to explain at least our own experiences in more fundamental terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Time and the Observer
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1992) 15, 183-247 Printed in the United States of America and when of consciousness in the brain Daniel C. Dennett3 and Marcel Kinsbourneb aCenter for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155; bBehavioral Neurology Unit, Sargent College, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 Electronic mail: [email protected] Abstracts We compare the way two models of consciousness treat subjective timing. According to the standard "Cartesian Theater" model, there is a place in the brain where "it all comes together," and the discriminations in all modalities are somehow put into registration and "presented" for subjective judgment. The timing of the events in this theater determines subjective order. According to the alternative "Multiple Drafts" model, discriminations are distributed in both space and time in the brain. These events do have temporal properties, but those properties do not determine subjective order because there is no single, definitive "stream of consciousness," only a parallel stream of conflicting and continuously revised contents. Four puzzling phenomena that resist explanation by the Cartesian model are analyzed: (1) a gradual apparent motion phenomenon involving abrupt color change (Kolers & von Griinau 1976), (2) an illusion of an evenly spaced series of "hops" produced by two or more widely spaced series of taps delivered to the skin (Geldard & Sherrick's "cutaneous rabbit" [1972]), (3) backwards referral in time, and (4) subjective delay of consciousness of intention (both reported in this journal by LIbet 1985a; 1987; 1989a). The unexamined assumptions that have always made the Cartesian Theater so attractive are exposed and dismantled. The Multiple Drafts model provides a better account of the puzzling phenomena, avoiding the scientific and metaphysical extravagances of the Cartesian Theater: The temporal order of subjective events is a product of the brain's interpretational processes, not a direct reflection of events making up those processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Across the Explanatory Gap
    Philos Theor Pract Biol (2019) 11:1 research article Evolving Across the Explanatory Gap Peter Godfrey-Smith∗ I attempt to narrow and reshape Levine’s “explanatory gap” between mental and physical, by means of a dual use of the concept of subjectivity. First, subjectivity and the associated notion of “point of view” are helpful in defusing arguments against materialism. Second, subjectivity is an explicable evolutionary product; I discuss a series of events in the history of life that bear on the origins of subjective experience. Keywords consciousness • evolution • subjectivity • perception • animals • materialism 1 Introduction One way to express the most persistent part of the mind-body problem is to say that there is an “explanatory gap” between the physical and the mental. The gap is not usually taken to apply to all of the mental, but to subjective experience, the mind’s “qualitative” features, or what is now referred to as “phenomenal consciousness.” The “gap” formulation is due to Joseph Levine (1983). He acknowledged the appeal of intuitions of separability between physical facts, of any kind we can envisage, and this aspect of our mental lives. Subjective experience seems not to be the sort of thing that is just the physical under another guise. The immediate focus of Levine’s discussion was a family of arguments due to Saul Kripke (1972). Kripke argued that some influential claims of mind-body identity could not be, as materialists claimed, contingent. If these identities are real then they are necessary. But we can clearly conceive that the mental and physical could come apart—an intuition that “identity theorists” conceded.
    [Show full text]
  • Panpsychism, Priority Cosmopsychism and Information
    Fundamental Consciousness: Panpsychism, Priority Cosmopsychism and Information By Nino Kadić Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Philosophy Supervisor: Philip A. Goff Budapest, Hungary CEU eTD Collection 2016 Abstract In this thesis, I argue that consciousness cannot be explained solely in terms of the facts revealed to us by empirical science. This is explained through a discussion of the explanatory gap between our knowledge of physical facts and those regarding consciousness. Specifically, I argue against the Phenomenal Concept Strategy, a fairly recent approach to answering anti-physicalist arguments. I then claim that if we take consciousness as something that cannot be explained in purely physical terms, we must also say that it is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. I explain the motivation for accepting this claim by considering what it means for something to be an intrinsic nature and by addressing the problem of strong emergence. The result of these considerations is panpsychism, the theory that consciousness truly is fundamental and ubiquitous. After that, I introduce the combination problem, the issue of how small subjects combine into bigger subjects. Priority cosmopsychism is then offered as a possible way of avoiding the combination problem. I then argue against priority cosmopsychism, claiming instead that we should remain panpsychists. I then move on to suggest a solution to the combination problem based on a discussion of syntactic and semantic information. I argue that information can be used to explain how small subjects bond to form bigger subjects. The final result is an informational form of panpsychism.
    [Show full text]
  • Robots and the Limits of Morality
    Robots and the Limits of Morality Raffaele Rodogno, [email protected] To appear in: M. Nørskov (ed) Social Robots: Boundaries, Potential, Challenges. Ashgate http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&title_id=1219171879&edition_id=1219254134&calcTitle= 1 ABSTRACT In this chapter, I ask whether we can coherently conceive of robots as moral agents and as moral patients. I answer both questions negatively but conditionally: for as long as robots lack certain features, they can be neither moral agents nor moral patients. These answers, of course, are not new. They have, yet, recently been the object of sustained critical attention (Coeckelbergh 2014; Gunkel 2014). The novelty of this contribution, then, resides in arriving at these precise answers by way of arguments that avoid these recent challenges. This is achieved by considering the psychological and biological bases of moral practices and arguing that the relevant differences in such bases are sufficient, for the time being, to exclude robots from adopting, both, an active and a passive moral role. Introduction Under what circumstances can robots properly be considered as moral agents bearing moral responsibility for their actions? Do robots have rights? Is it possible to harm or wrong a robot? I take it that most people (though, probably, robot-enthusiasts such as those reading these pages less so) will receive these questions with a certain amount of scepticism. Of course robots are not moral agents, and of course they cannot be harmed or wronged. They are after all just a bundle of circuitry and wiring typically wrapped in some poor human-looking form, if even that.
    [Show full text]