DOCSLIB.ORG

Neutral Monism-1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Demise of Neutral Monism Due to the Simplicity Intuition Neutral monism is the view that there is only one fundamental substance, neither physical nor mental, but neutral in nature. On this view, the world's neutral state determines both its mental and physical state. A central motivation for neutral monism is that it purports to provide for a solution to the mind- body problem. According to this solution, aggregates of neutral substance are conscious. A second motivation for neutral monism is that it purports to provide an explanation of the behavior of elementary particles. By this explanation, the neutral essences of elementary particles determine their physical behavior. It is my aim to show that neutral monism is false. My argument has two parts. First I will undermine the central motivation for neutral monism. I will do this by arguing that conscious beings are simple, that is to say, they are not composed of other things. Because conscious beings are simple, aggregates of neutral substance cannot themselves be conscious. And so, the neutral monist's solution to the mind-body problem is undermined. Second, I will show that only physical essences are a plausible candidate to explain the physical behavior of elementary particles. In section (1), I will explain the theory of neutral monism. In section (2), I will explore three conundrums presented by neutral monism. In section (3), I will defend the theory of our simplicity intuition applied to conscious beings. I will demonstrate how the theory of simplicity is in fact a sufficient counter argument to neutral monism. In section (4), I will explore superior objections to the simplicity intuition argument. In section (5), I will summarize David Chalmers mistake of surrendering to neutral monism, in his book The Conscious Mind. I will also discuss the general philosophical implications of surrendering to neutral monism. In section (6), I will explain that physical essences are the only plausible candidate to explain the behavior of these elementary particles, which neutral substance is theorized to govern. For all of its value, I believe Chalmers’ argument for neutral monism is constructed from weak premises and is unsound. In the interest of brevity, it is not my intention to support any justified solution to the mind body problem. I only mean to prove neutral monism false. In the end, I will touch on materialism, in comparison to the failed neutral monism. This paper will strictly focus on neutral monism and simplicity. (1) Neutral Monism Neutral monism classifies as a monistic metaphysical theory. Proponents deal the substance monistic argument in a drove of variety. What characteristic all variations hold in common is the concept of singularity: there exists one fundamental substance which underlies all concrete objects (physical and mental). Substance monism can be divided into the 3 kind, idealism: the one fundamental substance is strictly mental, materialism: the one fundamental substance is physical, and neutral monism. These different variations of substance monism arrive at conflict when determining what realm of existence constitutes this fundamental substance. The majority of neutral monist proponents believe that all physical and mental properties are created from and reduced to this fundamental neutral substance. This substance is believed to be neither physical nor mental thus conveying the idea of neutrality. I will be addressing a form of neutral monism which states that this neutral property constructs the intrinsic nature of the elementary subatomic particles that constitute our physical existence. When aggregated in specific states these same particle features supposedly possess consciousness. To understand this neutral monism we must know (1) the intrinsic nature of the neutral reality, (2) the correlating bond between the perceived Arete physical state and the neutral property, and (3) the correlating bond between the phenomenal experience (mental) and the neutral property. Proponents of neutral monism have the tendency to call the reality between mind and matter “neutral stuff”. We do not know the intrinsic nature of this neutral property; however, this neutral property is theorized to govern certain fundamental particles in our physical world. (1) To understand the nature of the neutral state we must understand the modern physical science’s outlook on elementary subatomic particles. Neutral monism thrives on our current limitation of knowledge in quantum mechanics. With current technology, we have yet to discover the intrinsic nature of subatomic particles, such as quarks and leptons. We have the ability to observe these particle’s actions and their governing features. We can measure mass, movements, quantum tunneling, electrical charge, and spin. We can observe how these particles react with other particles and construct mathematical formulas to predict certain future behavioral features. However, we do not currently know the intrinsic nature of these particles. By this I mean to say that we do not know the nature of the governing features (spin, charge, etc). Quarks and leptons are classified as elementary particles: particles that possess no substructure, and are the smallest things known to man. These particles construct larger particles such as protons, neutrons, etc. These larger particles then turn to construct atoms, which construct our physical state. Bertrand Russell, who was a proponent of neutral monism said, “Its (elementary subatomic properties) relation to the object (elementary subatomic particles) is causal and mathematical; we cannot say whether or not it resembles the object in any intrinsic respect, except that both it and the object are brief events in space-time”. When asked what “charge” is, a quantum physicist will state “it is a property carried by certain elementary particles”. When asked what controls the elementary particle’s charge, physicists will shrug their heads and hand you a calculation trying to predict a specific particle’s future actions based on the observed charge. Proponents of neutral monism say that the neutral reality governs these particles and constitutes their intrinsic nature. Neutral monist proponents believe the neutral substance is responsible for a quarks charge, spin, etc. Chalmers (proponent of neutral monism) uses the term “protophenomenal property” when referring to the governing neutral substance. I will follow Chalmers and use this term protophenomenal property, for I believe it accurately reflects the definition of the neutral property. (2) The intrinsic relationship of our perceived physical state and protophenomenal property is complex. The perceived physical reality exists as a constructed entity of the protophenomenal state. Because the protophenomenal property would govern the state of these fundamental particles (quarks and leptons), it would in turn control the larger particles which these particles construct (protons, neutrons, etc), and in turn control entire atoms themselves, which compose and govern the physical nature of all objects. The physical world would hold no existence or action in absence of the protophenomenal substance. The state of the protophenomenal substance qualitatively determines the state of the physical world. Physical properties would logically supervene on protophenomenal properties. Our entire physical existence would directly supervene from a qualitatively specific protophenomenal property. (3) Protophenomenal substance holds a constructing relation to phenomenal consciousness as well. When qualitatively specific aggregates of protophenomenal substance are composed, they possess an extrinsic feature of consciousness (e.g. conscious cognitive matter). Certain protophenomenal properties possess conscious experience, theoretically depending on their arrangement and relation to each other. Phenomenal consciousness logically supervenes from the neutral state. All mental sensation The Demise of Neutral Monism Due to the Simplicity Intuition and experience is ultimately composed from different protophenomenal property conglomerations. The phenomenal consciousness is strictly an experience receptor for certain neutral states. Not all protophenomenal states need phenomenal consciousness. Theoretically, an aggregate of protophenomenal properties that construct a table would most likely not possess consciousness. An aggregate of protophenomenal properties that construct a human brain would have the feature of consciousness. An example for clarity, so we may view the relation between the neutral, mental, and physical. “I see red”. This sensation «red» is a creation of my protophenomenal state. Certain protophenomenal properties conglomerated in a qualitatively specific structure. This conglomeration constructs a physical state of a certain “red” property. This physical state of «red» was simply projected through the certain configuration of multiple subatomic particles. Because the mental state simultaneously supervenes from the protophenomenal state, I have this phenomenal experience of red, however it is just a feature of my protophenomenal state, imaging itself into my perceived consciousness. On the next page I have created a simplified diagram, which illustrates the process occurring in a human brain under the governance of the neutral monist theory. Some possible protophenomenal states are in the middle column. Each one of these qualitatively different protophenomenal states gives rise to a corresponding physical state (right column) and phenomenal experience
Recommended publications
  • From Locke to Berkeley

    From Locke to Berkeley

    From Locke to Berkeley How Berkeley rejects Locke’s Metaphysical Realism in favor of what he calls “Idealism” Locke Summary Like Descartes, Locke believes that we perceive the “real” world only indirectly. • We do not directly perceive material objects, – Just as we do not directly perceive people we see on T.V.; • Rather, we directly perceive only ideas (sensations, things “in” our minds) that are caused by and represent material objects, – Just as, when watching T.V., we directly see only images on the screen. Locke’s Causal Theory of Perception: Indirectly Sensation aware of Matter Do our sensations resemble their objects? • Recall that Descartes’ big worry was whether or not there were any objects outside our minds. – (By the end of the 6th Meditation, he assures that there are.) • But he said we also make mistakes in thinking that our ideas always resembled the objects in the real world that caused us to have those sensations. Why should we believe that the ideas in our minds actually resemble the objects outside our minds that cause them? Mind’s Eye Idea Object Idea Object Mind In Locke’s Terms • Even if we accept that the ideas in our mind are caused by real objects that exist outside our minds – (Locke never really questions this) • Is it true that our ideas always resemble the qualities in the objects that caused us to have those ideas? Locke’s Answer • Only sometimes. Some of our ideas do resemble qualities in the objects, but some of them do not. • Our ideas of primary qualities resemble those qualities.
  • Beauty on Display Plato and the Concept of the Kalon

    Beauty on Display Plato and the Concept of the Kalon

    BEAUTY ON DISPLAY PLATO AND THE CONCEPT OF THE KALON JONATHAN FINE Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2018 © 2018 Jonathan Fine All rights reserved ABSTRACT BEAUTY ON DISPLAY: PLATO AND THE CONCEPT OF THE KALON JONATHAN FINE A central concept for Plato is the kalon – often translated as the beautiful, fine, admirable, or noble. This dissertation shows that only by prioritizing dimensions of beauty in the concept can we understand the nature, use, and insights of the kalon in Plato. The concept of the kalon organizes aspirations to appear and be admired as beautiful for one’s virtue. We may consider beauty superficial and concern for it vain – but what if it were also indispensable to living well? By analyzing how Plato uses the concept of the kalon to contest cultural practices of shame and honour regulated by ideals of beauty, we come to see not only the tensions within the concept but also how attractions to beauty steer, but can subvert, our attempts to live well. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii 1 Coordinating the Kalon: A Critical Introduction 1 1 The Kalon and the Dominant Approach 2 2 A Conceptual Problem 10 3 Overview 24 2 Beauty, Shame, and the Appearance of Virtue 29 1 Our Ancient Contemporaries 29 2 The Cultural Imagination 34 3 Spirit and the Social Dimension of the Kalon 55 4 Before the Eyes of Others 82 3 Glory, Grief, and the Problem of Achilles 100 1 A Tragic Worldview 103 2 The Heroic Ideal 110 3 Disgracing Achilles 125 4 Putting Poikilia in its Place 135 1 Some Ambivalences 135 2 The Aesthetics of Poikilia 138 3 The Taste of Democracy 148 4 Lovers of Sights and Sounds 173 5 The Possibility of Wonder 182 5 The Guise of the Beautiful 188 1 A Psychological Distinction 190 2 From Disinterested Admiration to Agency 202 3 The Opacity of Love 212 4 Looking Good? 218 Bibliography 234 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “To do philosophy is to explore one’s own temperament,” Iris Murdoch suggested at the outset of “Of ‘God’ and ‘Good’”.
  • The Role of Simplicity in Science and Theory. C

    The Role of Simplicity in Science and Theory. C

    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Undergraduate Honors Theses Student Works 5-2013 It's Not So Simple: The Role of Simplicity in Science and Theory. C. R. Gregg East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/honors Part of the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gregg, C. R., "It's Not So Simple: The Role of Simplicity in Science and Theory." (2013). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 97. https://dc.etsu.edu/honors/97 This Honors Thesis - Withheld is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IT’S NOT SO SIMPLE: THE ROLE OF SIMPLICITY IN SCIENCE AND THEORY Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of Honors By C. R. Gregg Philosophy Honors In Discipline Program East Tennessee State University May 3, 2013 (Updated) May 7, 2013 Dr. David Harker, Faculty Mentor Dr. Jeffrey Gold, Honors Coordinator Dr. Gary Henson, Faculty Reader Dr. Allen Coates, Faculty Reader Paul Tudico, Faculty Reader ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to sincerely thank: David Harker, my mentor and friend. Paul Tudico, who is largely responsible for my choice to pursue Philosophy. Leslie MacAvoy, without whom I would not be an HID student. Karen Kornweibel, for believing in me. Rebecca Pyles, for believing in me. Gary Henson and Allen Coates, for offering their time to serve as readers.
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death

    St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death

    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
  • David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance

    David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2020 David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance Jarrett Delozier [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delozier, Jarrett, "David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance" (2020). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2382 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DeLozier 1 Introduction In the history of philosophy of religion and natural theology, David Hume is an immensely influential contributor. One of his most important works in the field is his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which contains his greatest treatment of natural theology, specifically the design argument. However, there’s a big problem which the Dialogues present to understanding Hume. Eleven of the twelve parts of the Dialogues contain Hume’s sharp criticisms and attacks on the Design argument. But in the final part, in what is often called “Philo’s Reversal,” he seems to completely reverse course by renouncing his skepticism and endorsing the Design argument.
  • Descartes' Arguments for Distinguishing Mind and Body

    Descartes' Arguments for Distinguishing Mind and Body

    © Michael Lacewing Descartes’ arguments for distinguishing mind and body THE KNOWLEDGE ARGUMENT In Meditation II, having argued that he knows he thinks, Descartes then asks what kind of thing he is. Discussions of identity seek to establish the essential properties of something, what makes it the thing that it is. The question ‘what am I?’ can be answered by considering the question of what it is for me to exist. Descartes is trying to identify his essence, those properties which, if he lost them, would mean he was no longer what he is. (An island, for instance, must be surrounded by water. If the water dried up, joining it to the mainland, it would cease to be an island.) He remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body. From this Descartes concludes that it is possible for him to exist without a body. He is essentially a mind, not a body. He would not necessarily cease to be himself if he ceased to have a body, but he would necessarily cease to be himself if he didn’t have a mind. APPEAL TO GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE Descartes’ argument so far is that minds can exist without bodies. However, on its own, it doesn’t establish dualism.
  • Transparency of Mind: the Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject

    Transparency of Mind: the Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject

    Transparency of Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject Gary Hat! eld Philosophers often use classical positions as paradigms for de! ning their own views, usually in contrast. In the philosophy of mind, the notion of the Cartesian subject is one such paradigm. This notion is often used to represent tendencies in the conception of the subject that today’s philosophers wish to avoid. John McDowell and Hilary Putnam 1, among others, portray the Cartesian subject – and speci! cally the Cartesian mind – as a step backward from an earlier, preferable Aristotelianism, whose concept of mind might be made serviceable today if adjusted to ! t modern science. Such paradigms, whose use is unavoidable, are typically caricatures, whether slight or gross. The Cartesian mind as standardly portrayed by McDowell, Putnam, and oth- ers 2 is a gross caricature. This would be important enough for its potential to mislead us about the actual historical development of philosophy. But even more crucially for the philosophy of mind, the use of a caricatured picture as a counterparadigm against which one de! nes one’s own, comparatively better position, can lead to a pyrrhic vic- tory that avoids or misrepresents the real problems. If the opponent has been tailored to one’s desired virtues as conquering hero, one may give the impression that one’s own position solves great problems, deeply embedded in the tradition, when in fact one has simply rejected a fairly recent problematic position, which one has perhaps also misun- derstood and misidenti! ed. 3 The Cartesian mental paradigm is frequently de! ned in terms of four factors: con- sciousness as essence, intentionality as exclusively mental, the veil of perception, and the transparency of mind.
  • Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism

    Richard Swinburne's Arguments for Substance Dualism

    Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. MA by Research in Theology and Religion David Horner September 2018 Richard Swinburne’s arguments for substance dualism. Submitted by David Horner to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of MA by Research in Theology and Religion in September 2018 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Acknowledgements. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Jonathan Hill and Dr Joel Krueger for their support and encouragement in the writing of this dissertation and for their patience in trying to keep me on the straight and narrow. I want to acknowledge the many conversations, on this and other topics, I have had with my friend and philosopher, Dr Chris Boyne, who sadly died in June of this year. I thank all my other chums at The Bull, Ditchling, for listening to my metaphysical ramblings. And finally, I thank my wife, Linda, for once more putting up with this kind of thing. 2 Abstract This dissertation is a contribution to debates in the philosophy of mind and of personal identity. It presents a critical account of arguments for substance dualism to be found in Richard Swinburne’s Mind, Brain, and Free Will (2013).
  • Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity

    Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity

    Why the One Cannot Have Parts 1 Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Ontological Independence, and Perfect Being Theology By Caleb Murray Cohoe This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record appears in: Philosophical Quarterly (Published By Oxford University Press): Volume 67, Issue 269, 1 OctoBer 2017, Pages 751–771: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx008 Abstract: I use Plotinus to present aBsolute divine simplicity as the consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which most theists are already committed. I employ Phil Corkum’s account of ontological independence as independent status to present a new interpretation of Plotinus on the dependence of everything on the One. On this reading, if something else (whether an internal part or something external) makes you what you are, then you are ontologically dependent on it. I show that this account supports Plotinus’s claim that any entity with parts cannot Be fully independent. In particular, I lay out Plotinus’s case for thinking that even a divine self-understanding intellect cannot Be fully independent. I then argue that a weaker version of simplicity is not enough for the theist since priority monism meets the conditions of a moderate version of ontological independence just as well as a transcendent But complex ultimate Being. Keywords: aseity, simplicity, ontological dependence, perfect Being, monism, Platonism 1. Introduction This paper draws on the works of Plotinus to present absolute divine simplicity as the natural consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which the theist (and the perfect Being theologian in particular) is already committed.
  • Bayes and the Simplicity Principle in Perception

    Bayes and the Simplicity Principle in Perception

    Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report #80, 2004 Bayes and the Simplicity Principle in Perception Jacob Feldman Dept. of Psychology, Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University Two governing principles of perceptual inference, the Likelihood principle and the Simplicity principle, have been much discussed by perceptual theorists, and often placed in opposition. Recently, Chater (1996) has argued that the two principles are actually consistent in that their decisions tend to agree asymptotically. This article seeks to relate in a more mathematically di- rect way what is arguably the most plausible version of a likelihood theory, Bayesian inference, with a recently-proposed generalized formal minimum principle (the maximum-depth rule of Minimal Model theory). Assuming qualitative information on the part of the observer, and equal prior probabilities among among all competing hypotheses, maximizing the Bayesian posterior probability turns out to be mathematically equivalent to choosing the maximum- depth interpretation from a hierarchical space of possible scene interpretations. That is, the maximum-depth rule is analytically equivalent to Bayes with a particular choice of priors. Thus this version of the Simplicity principle, as well as “full-blown Bayes,” each constitute distinct points in a well-defined continuum of possible perceptual decision rules. In a very literal math- ematical sense, the observer’s position in this continuum—and, consequently, the perceptual decision rule it employs—reflect the nature of its tacit assumptions about the environment. Simplicity vs. Likelihood of the principle (Hatfield & Epstein, 1985), paralleling an principles in Perception analogous debate about the rationale of Occam’s razor in the selection of scientific theories (Quine, 1965; Sober, 1975).
  • Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science by Dr

    Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science by Dr

    Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science By Dr. Charles Wallis Last revision: 1/23/2013 Chapter 2 Greek Metaphysical Speculation: Philosophical Materialisms and Dualisms 2.1 Introduction It may seem odd to the contemporary thinker to suppose that people did not always have a clear conception of the mind and of mental phenomena. Nevertheless, like most contemporary western concepts the development of the notion of the mind and of mental phenomena actually occurs over the course of centuries. Indeed, the development of the notion of “the mind” arguably traces back to the development of the Greek notion of the soul. For most of Greek history the conception of the soul bears little resemblance to its contemporary western counterpart. In fact, the Greeks develop their notion of the soul as part of the development of general ontological frameworks for scientific and metaphysical speculation. Three features of the development of the Greek notion of the soul figure prominently in this rather superficial history. First, the development of the Greek notion of the soul represents a slow accretion of properties and processes associated with three different contemporary distinctions into a single ontological entity; living vs non-living, animate vs inanimate, and mental vs non-mental. Second, as the soul becomes more distinct both in its nature and in its functions, the Greeks begin to more actively debate whether the soul constitutes a fundamental kind of stuff (a distinct substance) or merely one of many permutations of more fundamental kinds of stuff (substances). For instance, early Greek thinkers often supposed that the universe consists of various permutations of one or more fundamental elements.
  • Reflexive Monism

    Reflexive Monism

    Reflexive Monism Max Velmans, Goldsmiths, University of London; email [email protected]; http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/psychology/staff/velmans.php Journal of Consciousness Studies (2008), 15(2), 5-50. Abstract. Reflexive monism is, in essence, an ancient view of how consciousness relates to the material world that has, in recent decades, been resurrected in modern form. In this paper I discuss how some of its basic features differ from both dualism and variants of physicalist and functionalist reductionism, focusing on those aspects of the theory that challenge deeply rooted presuppositions in current Western thought. I pay particular attention to the ontological status and seeming “out- thereness” of the phenomenal world and to how the “phenomenal world” relates to the “physical world”, the “world itself”, and processing in the brain. In order to place the theory within the context of current thought and debate, I address questions that have been raised about reflexive monism in recent commentaries and also evaluate competing accounts of the same issues offered by “transparency theory” and by “biological naturalism”. I argue that, of the competing views on offer, reflexive monism most closely follows the contours of ordinary experience, the findings of science, and common sense. Key words: Consciousness, reflexive, monism, dualism, reductionism, physicalism, functionalism, transparency, biological naturalism, phenomenal world, physical world, world itself, universe itself, brain, perceptual projection, phenomenal space, measured space, physical space, space perception, information, virtual reality, hologram, phenomenological internalism, phenomenological externalism, first person, third person, complementary What is Reflexive Monism? Monism is the view that the universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is one thing, or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff.