DOCSLIB.ORG

On David Chalmers's the Conscious Mind

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On David Chalmers's the Conscious Mind Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LIX, No.2, June 1999 On David Chalmers's The Conscious Mind SYDNEY SHOEMAKER Cornell University One does not have to agree with the main conclusions of David Chalmers's book in order to find it stimulating, instructive, and frequently brilliant. If Chalmers's arguments succeed, his achievement will of course be enormous~ he will have overthrown the materialist orthodoxy that has reigned in philos­ ophy of mind and cognitive science for the last half century. If, as I think, they fail, his achievement is nevertheless considerable. For his arguments draw on, and give forceful and eloquent expression to, widely held intuitions~ seeing how they go astray, if they do, cannot help but deepen our understand­ ing of the issues he is addressing. I shall focus on three points: Chalmers's conceivability argument for the possibility of "zombies," which grounds his dualism about phenomenal con­ sciousness ~ his "paradox of phenomenal judgment" ~ and the "dancing qualia argument" with which he supports his principle of organizational invariance. I Chalmers thinks that we can conceive of a world physically just like the actual world in which there are creatures, "zombies," which despite being physical and functional duplicates of conscious beings.in the actual world are themselves devoid of phenomenal consciousness. The states of these creatures lack phenomenal properties, or qualia. He takes the conceivability of such a world to establish its possibility. He takes this to show that phenomenal consciousness does not "logically supervene" on physical facts. And he takes this to show that it is not itself physical. Let "Q" name some quale, or phenomenal property. Chalmers is certainly right in holding that no matter what physical property "P" names, the state­ ment (S) "If someone has a state with P, she has an experience with Q" will not be a priori true, and will be such that we can conceive of its being false. Since he thinks that in the case of concepts of qualia, the "prin1ary intension" and "secondary intension" are the same, and that this is also true of concepts of physical properties, and since he thinks that "primary propositions" are BOOK SYMPOSIUM 439 necessarily true if and only if they are a priori true, he thinks that statement S will not be necessarily true. That of course gives us the possibility of a world in which S is false; and generalizing this gives us the possibility of "Zombie World." But it is easy to see how S could be necessarily true despite not being a priori true. It is compatible with the claim that individual qualia are not func­ tionally definable (because, e.g., functionally equivalent creatures could be qualia inverted relative to each other) that the relationships of qualitative sim­ ilarity and difference are functionally definable. l The claim that these relation­ ships are in fact functionally definable is of course controversial; but I do not think that it should be more controversial than functionalist claims Chalmers himself accepts, e.g., that judgment, memory, and various other "psychological" states or processes are functionally definable. If these similar­ ity and difference relationships are functionally definable, there is no apparent reason why they should not be physically realizable. If they are physically realizable, then fixing all of the physical facts is at the same time fixing all of the qualitative similarity and difference relations between experiences. Fix­ ing these relationships will involve fixing the qualitative character of experi­ ences, i.e., what qualia they instantiate. And this in turn will involve fixing the truth-value of statements like S; there will be a vast number of such statements that will have the status of being necessary a posteriori. Chalmers claims that "Ifthere were a functional analysis of the notion of experience or phenomenal quality, then the analysis in question would yield functional analyses of specific phenomenal properties..." (p. 23). Since hav­ ing a functional analysis of qualitative similarity and difference would amount to having a functional analysis of "the notion of experience or phenomenal quality," Chalmers is here asserting in effect that the functional definability of qualitative similarity and difference would require the functional definability of individual qualia. And that seems plainly to be a mistake. In holding that qualitative similarity and difference are functionally definable I am denying Chalmers's claim that Zombie World (a world physi­ cally like our~ in which there is no consciousness) is conceivable. Other crit­ ics of Chalmers have conceded this conceivability claim but denied the legit­ ilnacy of inferring from it to the metaphysical possibility of Zombie World. 2 I of course agree that the move from conceivability to metaphysical possibil­ ity can be questioned, even when the intensions involved are primary-for I think that the falsity of any statement like S can be conceived (i.e., no such statement is a priori), yet I think that some such statements are necessarily I have defended this claim in "Functionalism and Qualia" (Philosophical Studies, 27, 1975, reprinted in my Identity, Cause and Mind, Can1bridge, 1984) and in a number of other papers. E.g., Brian Loar, in his excellent "David Chalmers's The Conscious Mind," delivered at the meetings of the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association in 1997. 440 SYDNEY SHOEMAKER true. (And since I think that nomological necessity is a special case of meta­ physical necessity, I think that there are many other cases in which the move from conceivability to metaphysical possibility is illegitimate.) But while I think, in agreement with other critics, that the claim that Zombie World is conceivable does not get Chalmers what he wants, I also think that it is more than he is entitled to-and it is worth pointing out that (contrary to what he supposes) it is not implied by the conceivability claim he is entitled to, namely that given any "supervenience conditional" such as S, one can con­ ceive of its being false. II I turn to the "paradox of phenomenal judgment." Because he accepts the causal closure of the physical realm, Chalmers concedes that his view makes phenomenal states "explanatorily irrelevant" to the phenomenal judgments that are supposedly about them. He therefore faces the objection that his view cannot account for either our knowledge of such states or our ability to refer to them. His presentation of this objection seemed to me brilliant. His replies struck me as unconvincing. Although Chalmers holds that the explanatory irrelevance of phenomenal states does not strictly imply that they are epiphenomenal, he concedes that his view precludes him from holding that a causal theory of knowledge explains our knowledge of phenomenal states, or that a causal theory of refer­ ence explains our ability to refer to them. He thinks, however, that while such theories may have application elsewhere, there is no compelling reason why they should have application here. But one does not have to maintain that such theories have universal appli­ cation in order to hold that where states do stand in appropriate causal rela­ tions to judgments, the judgments are about the states and express knowledge of them. The holding of certain sorts of causal relations could be sufficient for reference and knowledge even if it is not necessary for this. So consider the hypothetical zombie who is an exact physical and functional duplicate of Chalmers. Nothing that Chalmers has argued excludes the possibility that this (supposed) zombie has states, physical or functional ones, whose causal relations to its phenomenal judgments are such as to make it true that those judgments are about those states and express knowledge of them. 3 But what- Chalmers does say that his zombie twin means to refer, in his "clain1s of consciousness," to something other than a functional property, and gives that as a reason for saying that this zombie's claims of consciousness are false, unless understood in a "deflationary" way (p. 204). But this of course cannot provide a good reason for saying that, e.g., the claims of consciousness of my zombie twin are false! And, putting aside the zombie twins, it is not just on a "deflationary" interpretation of claims of consciousness that it would be absurd to say that because Chalmers and I differ in our theoretical views about consciousness, one or the other of us must be wrong in our everyday claims of con­ sciousness. BOOK SYMPOSIUM 441 ever case there is for holding that the phenomenal judgments of the zombie are about physical or functional states of it will also apply to Chalmers and his phenomenal judgments-for Chalmers and the zombie are physical and functional duplicates. And in that case (a) the "zombie" will not be a zombie, and (b) Chalmers's nonphysical phenomenal states, supposing he has such, will be irrelevant to the truth of the phenomenal judgments he makes about himself-either that or, weirdly, some of Chalmers's assertive utterances express two different judgments, one self-ascribing the sort of phenomenal state his zombie counterpart self-ascribes, and the other (somehow) self­ ascribing a phenomenal state that is explanatorily irrelevant to it. Since Chalmers thinks that the zombie's phenomenal judgments are false (or perhaps in some cases without truth value, owing to reference failure), and since he thinks that what is required to justify a phenomenal judgment is the subject's having the phenomenal property it ascribes, this being the evidence required for such a judgment, he thinks that the zombie's phenomenal judg­ ments are without evidence and unjustified. But this cuts the notions of justification and evidence loose from their moorings. There is obviously no way in which the zombie is epistemically culpable in making the phenome­ nal judgments it makes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Haecceitism, Chance
    HAECCEITISM, CHANCE, AND COUNTERFACTUALS Boris Kment Abstract. Anti-haecceitists believe that all facts about specific individuals—such as the fact that Fred exists, or that Katie is tall—globally supervene on purely qualitative facts. Haecceitists deny that. The issue is not only of interest in itself, but receives additional importance from its intimate connection to the question of whether all fundamental facts are qualitative or whether they include facts about which specific individuals there are and how qualitative properties and relations are distributed over them. Those who think that all fundamental facts are qualitative are arguably committed to anti-haecceitism. The goal of this paper is to point out some problems for anti-haecceitism (and therefore for the thesis that all fundamental facts are qualitative). The article focuses on two common assumptions about possible worlds: (i) Sets of possible worlds are the bearers of objective physical chance. (ii) Counterfactual conditionals can be defined by appeal to a relation of closeness between possible worlds. The essay tries to show that absurd consequences ensue if either of these assumptions is combined with anti-haecceitism. Then it considers a natural response by the anti-haecceitist, which is to deny that worlds play the role described in (i) and (ii). Instead, the reply continues, we can introduce a new set of entities that are defined in terms of worlds and that behave the way worlds do on the haecceitist position. That allows the anti-haecceitist to formulate anti-haecceitist friendly versions of (i) and (ii) by replacing the appeal to possible worlds with reference to the newly introduced entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness
    Consciousness Jon Opie* School of Humanities, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia *Correspondence: [email protected] Understanding consciousness and its place in the natural world is one of the principal targets of contemporary philosophy of mind. Australian philosophers made seminal contributions to this project during the twentieth century which continue to shape the way philosophers and scientists think about the conceptual, metaphysical and empirical aspects of the problem. After some scene setting, I will discuss the main players and their work in the context of broader developments in the philosophy of mind. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, scientific psychology set itself the task of systematically exploring the mind, understood as the conscious activity that accompanies perception and thought. Labs in Germany and the United States began the tedious work of determining the structure of experience via the reports of trained subjects operating under carefully controlled stimulus conditions. The hope was that the phenomena revealed by this means might eventually be correlated with activity in the central nervous system. Many philosophers considered this project misguided. The logical positivists, who insisted that a statement is only meaningful if one can specify observable conditions that would render it true or false, rejected the view that psychological predicates such as „pain‟ have any subjective content. A statement like „Paul has a toothache‟ is merely an abbreviation for a list of physical events (such as Paul weeping, Paul‟s blood pressure rising, etc.) which collectively exhaust the meaning of the statement (Hempel 1980). Ryle (1949) and Wittgenstein (1953) regarded the so called „mind-body problem‟ as the result of a misuse of ordinary language.
    [Show full text]
  • Mind and Language Seminar: Theories of Content
    Mind and Language Seminar: Theories of Content Ned Block and David Chalmers Meetings • Main meeting: Tuesdays 4-7pm over Zoom [4-6pm in weeks without a visitor] • Student meeting: Mondays 5-6pm hybrid • Starting Feb 22 [only weeks with a visitor] • Enrolled students and NYU philosophy graduate students only. • Feb 2: Background: Theories of Content • Feb 9: Background: Causal/Teleological Theories • Feb 16: Background: Interpretivism • Feb 23: Nick Shea • March 2: Robbie Williams • March 9: Frances Egan • March 16: Adam Pautz • March 23: Veronica Gómez Sánchez • March 30: Background: Phenomenal Intentionality • April 6: Imogen Dickie • April 13: Angela Mendelovici • April 20: Background: Conceptual-Role Semantics • April 27: Christopher Peacocke • May 4: David Chalmers Assessment • Draft paper due April 19 • Term paper due May 17 Attendance Policy • Monday meetings: Enrolled students and NYU philosophy graduate students only. • Tuesday meetings: NYU and NYC Consortium students and faculty only • Very limited exceptions • Email us to sign up on email list if you haven’t already. Introductions Short History of the 20th Century • 1900-1970: Reduce philosophical questions to issues about language and meaning. • 1970s: Theories of meaning (philosophy of language as first philosophy) • 1980s: Theories of mental content (philosophy of mind as first philosophy). • 1990s: Brick wall. Theories of Content • What is content? • What is a theory of content? Content • Content (in the broadest sense?) is intentionality or aboutness • Something has content when it is about something. Contents • Content = truth-conditions • Content = satisfaction-conditions • Content = propositions • Content = objects of intentional states • Content = … What Has Content? • What sort of thing has content? What Has Content? • What sort of thing has content? • language (esp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puzzle of Conscious Experience (Chalmers)
    The Puzzle of Conscious Experience David J. Chalmers * From David Chalmers, "The Puzzle of Conscious Experience," Scientific American, 273 (1995), pp. 80-6. Reprinted by permission of the author. Conscious experience is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. There is nothing we know about more directly than consciousness, but it is extraordinarily hard to reconcile it with everything else we know. Why does it exist? What does it do? How could it possibly arise from neural processes in the brain? These questions are among the most intriguing in all of science. From an objective viewpoint, the brain is relatively comprehensible. When you look at this page, there is a whir of processing: photons strike your retina, electrical signals are passed up your optic nerve and between different areas of your brain, and eventually you might respond with a smile, a perplexed frown or a remark. But there is also a subjective aspect. When you look at the page, you are conscious of it, directly experiencing the images and words as part of your private, mental life. You have vivid impressions of colored flowers and vibrant sky. At the same time, you may be feeling some emotions and forming some thoughts. Together such experiences make up consciousness: the subjective, inner life of the mind. For many years consciousness was shunned by researchers studying the brain and the mind. The prevailing view was that science, which depends on objectivity, could not accommodate something as subjective as consciousness. The behaviorist movement in psychology, dominant earlier in this century, concentrated on external behavior and disallowed any talk of internal mental processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Modal Empiricism and Two-Dimensional Semantics
    =" Modal Empiricismand Two-DimensionalSemantics GergelyAmbrus, Miskolc, Hungary h45í2amb@he|ka.iif.hu l. The concept ofstrong necessity hold that zombies are not possible,even thoughtthey are li:, conceivab|e;víz. certain physica| (brain) events strong|y ]l"1 A strongly necessitates B, when it is not possible that A necessitateconscious events. This view is a version of a and not B, though it is conceivable that A and not B. In posteriorimaterialism, which holds that physical facts de- ..t anotherÍormu|ation: A entai|sB' but it is not priori a fuhatA terminefacts about consciousness.but thev do not deter- entails B (A does not imply B). Strong metaphysicatne- mine them a priori. cessities determine the space oÍ possib|e wor|ds. |f the T'1 space of possible worlds is sparser then the worlds which are (ideallyprimarily positively) conceivable, then whether ll. Chalmers' arguments against strong necessities a world is possible or not, is determinedby some meta- & physical fact, over and above the world's being (ideally One argument of David Chalmers against strong meta- primarily positively) conceivable.' Thus: accepting that physical necessities is the following.There are no candi- - - there are strong necessities commits one to modal empir- dates of strong necessities,except the alleged strong :l icsm;denying it, to modalrationalism. necessity of the brain-consciousnessrelation; and this 1: suggests that strong necessity is an ad froc inventionto a The concept oÍstrong necessity may be i||uminated save materialism.I shall argue, however, that it follows {. further by consideringthe relation between complete de- trom Chalmers, views on the semantics and ontology oÍ iui scriptionof a world w and a particulartrue statementS.
    [Show full text]
  • Chalmers' Refutation of Materialists Concept of Consciousness
    IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 15, Issue 5 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 38-41 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.Iosrjournals.Org Chalmers’ Refutation of Materialists Concept of Consciousness Dr. Shanjendu Nath Associate Professor, Rabindrasadan Girls’ College, Karimganj, Assam, India. Abstract: It is undoubtedly true that the phenomenon of consciousness is familiar to us and cannot be denied. In our waking lives at every moment we are conscious of something or other. But the problem is- what is consciousness? Can it be known? Attempts have been made to explain the nature of it by different philosophers in different times but yet none can give us a satisfactory and well accepted solution of the problem. But yet effort is not stopped. Materialists believe that there is nothing over and above matter and thereby they opine that consciousness is a process in the brain. Thus in this article I shall try to highlight a brief outlines of the materialist concept of consciousness, particularly the views of U. T. Place and Armstrong and finally explore Chalmers’ arguments against materialism. Key Words: proprioception, supervenience, zombie, consciousness, metaphysical. I. Introduction It is true that in recent times much progress has been made in the science of mind. For a better understanding of the human behaviour and of the processes that produce it, the recent work in cognitive science and neuroscience is leading us. In theories of cognition we do not have perfection but it is sure that the details are not too far from our reach. Yet consciousness is a matter of puzzle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mystery of David Chalmers
    Daniel C. Dennett The Mystery of David Chalmers 1. Sounding the Alarm ‘The Singularity’ is a remarkable text, in ways that many readers may not appreciate. It is written in an admirably forthright and clear style, and is beautifully organized, gradually introducing its readers to the issues, sorting them carefully, dealing with them all fairly and with impressive scholarship, and presenting the whole as an exercise of sweet reasonableness, which in fact it is. But it is also a mystery story of sorts, a cunningly devised intellectual trap, a baffling puzzle that yields its solution — if that is what it is (and that is part of the mystery) — only at the very end. It is like a ‘well made play’ in which every word by every character counts, retrospectively, for something. Agatha Christie never concocted a tighter funnel of implications and suggestions. Bravo, Dave. Copyright (c) Imprint Academic 2013 So what is going on in this essay? It purports to be about the pros- pects of the Singularity, and since I can count on readers of my essay For personal use only -- not for reproduction to have read Chalmers, I needn’t waste so much as a sentence on what that is or might be. See Chalmers (2010). I confess that I was initially repelled by the prospect of writing a commentary on this essay since I have heretofore viewed the Singularity as a dismal topic, involving reflections on a technological fantasy so far removed from actuality as to be an indulgence best resisted. Life is short, and there are many serious problems to think about.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phenomenology of Cognition Or What Is It Like to Think That P?
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXIX, No. 1, July 2004 The Phenomenology of Cognition Or What Is It Like to Think That P? DAVID PITT California State University, Los Angeles A number of philosophers endorse, without argument, the view that there’s something it’s like consciously to think that p, which is distinct from what it’s like consciously to think that q. This thesis, if true, would have important consequences for philosophy of mind and cognitive science. In this paper I offer two arguments for it. The first argument claims it would be impossible introspectively to distinguish conscious thoughts with respect to their content if there weren’t something it’s like to think them. This argument is defended against several objections. The second argument uses what I call “minimal pair” experiences—sentences read without and with understanding—to induce in the reader an experience of the kind I claim exists. Further objects are considered and rebutted. It is a traditional assumption in analytic philosophy of mind that intentional states, such as believing, doubting or wondering that p, have no intrinsic phenomenal properties, and that phenomenal states, such as feeling pain, seeing red or hearing middle C, have no intrinsic intentional properties. We are, according to this view, of two metaphysically distinct minds, the intentional and the phenomenal. Both of these assumptions have been challenged in the recent literature. Block (1996), Loar (2001), Peacocke (1992) and Tye (1995), for example, have argued that purely phenomenal, nonconceptual states have intentional (or proto-intentional) properties. And a fair number of philosophers and psychologists, e.g., Baars (1988), Chalmers (1996), Flanagan (1992), Goldman (1993), Horgan and Tienson (2002), Jackendoff (1987), Kobes (1995), Langsam (2000), Levine (1993; 1995), Loar (1987; 1998), McGinn (1992), McCulloch (1999), Moore (1962), Peacocke (1998), Schweizer (1994), Searle (1990), Siewert (1998) and Strawson (1994), have expressed the view that conscious intentional states have qualitative character.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Consciousness and Intentionality
    University of Central Florida STARS HIM 1990-2015 2013 The relationship between consciousness and intentionality Jordan Bell University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015 University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIM 1990-2015 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Bell, Jordan, "The relationship between consciousness and intentionality" (2013). HIM 1990-2015. 1384. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1384 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTENTIONALITY by JORDAN BELL A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts & Humanities and in The Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2013 Thesis Chair: Dr. Mason Cash ABSTRACT Within the Philosophy of Mind two features of our mental life have been acknowledged as the most perplexing—consciousness, the phenomenal “what it is likeness” of our mental states, and intentionality, the aboutness or directedness of our mental states. As such, it has become commonplace to develop theories about these phenomena which seek to explain them naturalistically, that is, without resort to magic or miracles. Traditionally this has been done by analyzing consciousness and intentionality apart from one another. However, in more recent years the tide has turned. In contemporary theories these phenomena are typically analyzed in terms of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Peirce, Pragmatism, and the Right Way of Thinking
    SANDIA REPORT SAND2011-5583 Unlimited Release Printed August 2011 Peirce, Pragmatism, and The Right Way of Thinking Philip L. Campbell Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily con- stitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HORNSWOGGLE PROBLEM1 Patricia Smith Churchland, Department of Philosophy, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
    Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3, No. 5ñ6, 1996, pp. 402ñ8 THE HORNSWOGGLE PROBLEM1 Patricia Smith Churchland, Department of Philosophy, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. Abstract: Beginning with Thomas Nagel, various philosophers have propsed setting con- scious experience apart from all other problems of the mind as ëthe most difficult problemí. When critically examined, the basis for this proposal reveals itself to be unconvincing and counter-productive. Use of our current ignorance as a premise to determine what we can never discover is one common logical flaw. Use of ëI-cannot-imagineí arguments is a related flaw. When not much is known about a domain of phenomena, our inability to imagine a mechanism is a rather uninteresting psychological fact about us, not an interesting metaphysical fact about the world. Rather than worrying too much about the meta-problem of whether or not consciousness is uniquely hard, I propose we get on with the task of seeing how far we get when we address neurobiologically the problems of mental phenomena. I: Introduction Conceptualizing a problem so we can ask the right questions and design revealing experiments is crucial to discovering a satisfactory solution to the problem. Asking where animal spirits are concocted, for example, turns out not to be the right question to ask about the heart. When Harvey asked instead, ëHow much blood does the heart pump in an hour?í, he conceptualized the problem of heart function very differently. The recon- ceptualization was pivotal in coming to understand that the heart is really a pump for circulating blood; there are no animal spirits to concoct.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Chalmers' Analysis of Consciousness a Strong Alternative
    IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 17, Issue 4 (Nov. - Dec. 2013), PP 55-58 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org Is Chalmers’ Analysis of Consciousness a Strong Alternative to Materialism? Dr. Shanjendu Nath, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D. Associate Professor, Rabindrasadan Girls’ College, Karimganj, Assam, India. Abstract: In explaining the nature of consciousness the position of materialism and dualism are opposed to each other. Materialist philosophers explained consciousness with the help of matter. Over and above brain process, they do not believe any immaterial entities. They analyse consciousness with the help of brain process. This is undoubtedly a challenge to dualist philosophers. Chalmers, a supporter of dualism, strongly criticises the materialist analysis of consciousness and instead he tries to explain it by the theory of dualism. In this regard he used his imaginary Zombie theory. But the materialists also responded to Chalmers’ arguments. In this paper I shall try to explore Chalmers’ Zombie theory of consciousness and the responses of materialists against it. And finally, show that Chalmers analysis is not a stronger alternative to the materialism. Key words: Consciousness, Eliminativists, Supervenience, Zegnet, Zombie. I. Introduction There are different mysterious things to human beings. But the most surviving and last mystery is human consciousness. Common people believe that consciousness is an illusion or mysterious thing. But this view cannot be accepted because consciousness is the surest existence that cannot be denied. Philosophers of different ages also attempted to solve the problem. But the problem is that consciousnesses is beyond our reach and as such whatever information we got from different philosophers are really probable and not certain.
    [Show full text]