DOCSLIB.ORG

Consciousness from a Naturalistic Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consciousness from a Naturalistic Perspective Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) 2009 Consciousness From A Naturalistic Perspective Hugh R. Alcock Wilfrid Laurier University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Alcock, Hugh R., "Consciousness From A Naturalistic Perspective" (2009). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1065. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1065 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSCIOUSNESS FROM A NATURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE by Hugh R. Alcock MPhil, University of Birmingham, 2001 BA. Hons, University of Guelph, 1999 DISSERTATION Submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy Wilfrid Laurier University April, 2009 © Hugh R. Alcock 2009 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-49965-8 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-49965-8 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada ii ABSTRACT Despite advances in neuroscience some sceptics, e.g., David Chalmers, Colin McGinn and Thomas Nagel, contend that we are no nearer to achieving a scientific understanding of phenomenal consciousness. These sceptics claim that naturalising consciousness, i.e., subsuming it under our scientific theories, is either impossible, at least without radically reforming our current scientific practices, or perhaps beyond our cognitive grasp. Their scepticism is based on what is called the 'problem of consciousness' or the 'hard problem'. I argue that their pessimism is unwarranted. Their conclusion is based on adopting a non- naturalistic attitude, according to which our scientific theories must accommodate our intuitive understanding of phenomena. Adopting this attitude, I argue, is a bad policy quite generally as it is liable to lead to unconstrainable metaphysical claims. Our best policy is to adopt a naturalistic attitude instead, characterised by thinking of philosophy as continuous with science, as W.V. Quine urged. And from this naturalistic perspective explaining consciousness in scientific terms is possible. Our phenomenological, i.e., first- personal, understanding of consciousness is based on qualia which, I argue, are unnaturalisable. However, there are two ways in which we understand consciousness, namely, naturalistically in terms of behaviour and physiology and phenomenologically, and I argue that although it may seem contradictory these ways of understanding consciousness are mutually dependent. Consequently, consciousness as it is understood naturalistically is bound up with our phenomenological understanding of it. Therefore, inasmuch as consciousness understood naturalistically is subsumable under our scientific theories so consciousness simpliciter is naturalisable. Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to my dissertation adviser Neil Campbell. I could not have hoped for a better adviser. Above all he has demonstrated to me the virtues of clarity and organisation in philosophical writing. Special thanks also to the other two members of my committee, Andrew Bailey and Rockney Jacobsen, who have been exemplary in their professionalism and generous with their time. Also I wish to thank my external examiner, Philip Dwyer (University of Saskatchewan), and my internal/external examiner, Peter Eglin (Department of Sociology). Both examiners had valuable insights into my work and have given me much to think about. In addition, I owe a sincere debt of thanks to Rhea and Ray Whitehead and Cathie Neagle, without whose support none of this would have been possible. Finally, many thanks to my parents Roy and Sheila Alcock for their support during my years of study. CONSCIOUSNESS FROM A NATURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE Hugh R. Alcock TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1-14 Chapter 1: Naturalism and Consciousness 15-54 1.1 Naturalism 17 1.2 Consciousness as a Natural Property 29 1.2.1 Chalmers'Naturalistic Dualism 31 1.3 Varieties of Naturalism 35 1.4 Consciousness and Cognitive Closure 41 1.4.1 Consciousness as a Non-spatial Property 45 1.5 A Difficulty with McGinn's Naturalism 48 1.6 Summary 52 Chapter 2: The Problem of Consciousness 55-102 2.1 Nagelian Anti-Physicalism 59 2.2 Jackson's Knowledge Argument 70 2.3 Chalmers' Panpsychism 77 2.4 The Conceivability Argument 89 2.4.1 Reply to the Conceivability Argument 95 2.5 Summary 101 Chapter 3: The Unindividuability of Qualia 103-139 3.1 What Qualia Are Thought to Be 105 3.1.1 The Peculiarity of Qualia 109 3.2 Why Qualia Cannot Be Individuated 112 3.3 Dennett's Qualia Scepticism 116 3.3.1 Qualia Debunked 122 3.4 A Physicalist Criterion of Individuation 126 3.4.1 Evidence for the Identity Theory? 132 3.5 Summary 136 V Chapter 4: Saving the Phenomenological 140-176 4.1 Making Sense of Consciousness 142 4.2 Retaining Qualia 150 4.2.1 Two Ways of Thinking of Consciousness 155 4.2.2 The Zombie Hypothesis 161 4.2.3 The Problem of the Explanatory Gap 166 4.3 Making Sense of Qualia Talk 174 4.4 Summary 175 Chapter 5: Demystifying Qualia 177-215 5.1 Two Objections 179 5.2 Why Qualia Are not Non-Physical 181 5.3 Dissolving the Mystery 186 5.3.1 Neuroscience and Consciousness 192 5.4 Qualia as Epistemically Originating Properties 202 5.5 Dissolving the Problem of Consciousness 206 Bibliography 217-222 1 INTRODUCTION As our understanding of the brain, and of cognition more generally, has advanced some have begun seriously to try to explain mental phenomena, that is, to offer a viable theory of mind. These efforts find support among many philosophers of mind; perhaps the most notable of whom are Daniel Dennett and Paul and Patricia Churchland. There could almost be said to exist a partnership between neuroscientists and philosophers in this respect.1 At the same time, however, other philosophers see the possibility of a neuroscientific theory of mind as either extremely problematic or downright mistaken. This scepticism originates, most notably, with the work of Thomas Nagel (1974) and Frank Jackson (1982). Other more recent sceptics include David Chalmers (1996), Colin McGinn (1991), Galen Strawson (1994). Their concerns focus on phenomenal consciousness. They argue that our inability to think of consciousness in physical terms either demonstrates or strongly suggests that it is not a physical property and as such it is beyond the limits of science, at least as it is currently practised. In this dissertation I 1 This partnership has led to the publication of many popular books expounding such theories, e.g., Antonio Damasio's Descartes' Error (1994), Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained (1991) and Nicholas Humphrey's A History of the Mind (1994), and more recently G.M. Edelman and G. Tononi's A Universe of Consciousness (2000) and Christof Koch's The Quest for Consciousness (2004). 2 consider the philosophical reasoning behind this scepticism about the possibility of naturalising phenomenal consciousness, i.e., capturing it in our scientific theories. Phenomenal consciousness (henceforth 'consciousness') is that property constitutive of our phenomenal experiences, e.g., our seeing a blue sky, our smelling the fragance of a flower, our hearing the musical notes of a composition etc. In seeing a blue sky we do not simply see the sky as blue, but rather -we feel it as such. Consciousness concerns how things feel or seem to us in this sense. Without consciousness, we suppose, perceiving the world would be mechanical; that is to say, there would be nothing more to seeing, hearing, touching things etc. than bodies reacting to these things in ways that could be wholly described in mechanical terms. And this is not how we think our experiences go. Our experiences are alive, they are conscious or felt. Pain, for example, is not merely a mechanical reaction to bodily damage, it also has the qualitative character of hurtfulness; besides involving a set of behavioural dispositions such as avoidance and exclamations, pain experiences have a raw feel to them. We think of consciousness, therefore, as comprising the qualitative character of our phenomenal experiences. Each of the properties that characterise experience in this qualitative sense is often referred to as a 'quale'.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Ronald Endicott, “Multiple Realizability” (Final Draft) Forthcoming in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2Nd Edition, Macmillan Press, 2005
    Ronald Endicott, “Multiple Realizability” (Final Draft) Forthcoming in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, MacMillan Press, 2005 Multiple realizability is a key issue in debates over the nature of mind and reduction in the sciences. The subject consists of two parts: “multiplicity” and “realizability.” “Multiplicity” designates a kind of variability in the mechanism and materials from which a particular type of thing can be made. “Realizability” designates a specific relation that exists when there is the stated variability. Realizability Apart from the broad folk notion of realization meaning that a thing is “made real,” philosophers apply several technical notions to paradigm cases such computational states realized by engineering states, minds realized by brains, and persons realized by their bodies. The technical notions fall into three broad traditions: “mathematical,” “logico- semantic,” and “metaphysical.” The mathematical tradition equates realization with a form of mapping between objects. Generally speaking, x mathematically realizes y because elements of y map onto elements of x. The notion is useful for many purposes, for example, when constructing a formal model of a particular domain. However, since mapping extends to models as well as reality, it fails to distinguish between “simulated” versus “genuine” realizations. Heavenly stars can be mapped onto grains of sand, but grains of sand do not realize heavenly stars in any genuine sense. Similarly, the mental states described by a cognitive program can be mapped onto unthinking groups of things, but unthinking groups of things do not realize mental states in any genuine sense (Block, 1978). Hence, to capture what is essential to genuine realization, William Lycan (1987) adds ideas about evolutionary function, while David Chalmers (1994) emphasizes facts about causal structure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: a Version of the Argument from Reason
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2019-04-30 The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason Hawkes, Gordon Hawkes, G. (2019). The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110301 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason by Gordon Hawkes A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2019 © Gordon Hawkes 2019 i Abstract The argument from reason is the name given to a family of arguments against naturalism, materialism, or determinism, and often for theism or dualism. One version of the argument from reason is what Victor Reppert calls “the argument from the psychological relevance of logical laws,” or what I call “the argument from logical principles.” This argument has received little attention in the literature, despite being advanced by Victor Reppert, Karl Popper, and Thomas Nagel.
    [Show full text]