Atsisveikinant su svajone: kodėl suvokiamumo argumentai nepajėgia atskleisti sąmonės metafizikos

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Luis Alejandro Murillo-Lara
{"title":"Atsisveikinant su svajone: kodėl suvokiamumo argumentai nepajėgia atskleisti sąmonės metafizikos","authors":"Luis Alejandro Murillo-Lara","doi":"10.15388/problemos.2023.104.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I present a novel objection to Chalmers’s “master argument” against the privileged strategy of ‘type B’ physicalists to account for the explanatory gap (the “phenomenal concepts strategy”). Specifically, I argue that the second horn of the master argument gets wrong why zombies cannot have our epistemic situation with regard to consciousness. Zombies cannot have a kind of mental state that we have. If something must have all of our psychological attributes to share our epistemic situation, then zombies cannot serve the purpose of the second horn of the dilemma. By way of background, I begin by briefly outlining a related argument against physicalism, also advanced by D. Chalmers – the “conceivability argument.” I highlight some of the primary challenges with this argument and present additional criticisms. Finally, through a brief examination of panprotopsychism, I consider what lies ahead if Chalmers’s arguments are conceded. I conclude that the phenomenal concept strategy is a sound explanation for why the conceivability of zombies likely does not imply their metaphysical possibility.","PeriodicalId":41448,"journal":{"name":"Problemos","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problemos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2023.104.9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, I present a novel objection to Chalmers’s “master argument” against the privileged strategy of ‘type B’ physicalists to account for the explanatory gap (the “phenomenal concepts strategy”). Specifically, I argue that the second horn of the master argument gets wrong why zombies cannot have our epistemic situation with regard to consciousness. Zombies cannot have a kind of mental state that we have. If something must have all of our psychological attributes to share our epistemic situation, then zombies cannot serve the purpose of the second horn of the dilemma. By way of background, I begin by briefly outlining a related argument against physicalism, also advanced by D. Chalmers – the “conceivability argument.” I highlight some of the primary challenges with this argument and present additional criticisms. Finally, through a brief examination of panprotopsychism, I consider what lies ahead if Chalmers’s arguments are conceded. I conclude that the phenomenal concept strategy is a sound explanation for why the conceivability of zombies likely does not imply their metaphysical possibility.
告别梦境:为什么知觉论证无法揭示意识的形而上学?
在本文中,我提出了一个新的反对Chalmers的“主论点”,反对“B型”物理主义者的特权策略来解释解释差距(“现象概念策略”)。具体来说,我认为主论点的第二个角是错误的,为什么僵尸不能有我们在意识方面的认知情况。僵尸不可能有我们的那种精神状态。如果某些东西必须具有我们所有的心理属性才能分享我们的认知情况,那么僵尸就不能达到第二个困境的目的。作为背景,我首先简要概述了一个反对物理主义的相关论点,也是由D. Chalmers提出的——“可想象性论点”。我强调了这一论点的一些主要挑战,并提出了额外的批评。最后,通过对泛原型心理学的简要考察,我考虑了如果查默斯的论点被承认,未来会发生什么。我的结论是,现象概念策略是一个合理的解释,为什么僵尸的可想象性可能并不意味着他们的形而上学的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Problemos
Problemos PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信