Property Dualism Research Articles

Access Denied to Zombies

I argue that metaphysicians of mind have not done justice to the notion of accessibility between possible worlds. Once accessibility is given its due, physicalism must be reformulated and conceivability arguments must be reevaluated. To reach these conclusions, I explore a novel way of assessing the zombie conceivability argument. I accept that zombies are possible and ask whether that possibility is accessible from our world in the sense of ‘accessible’ used in possible world semantics. It turns out that the question whether zombie worlds are accessible from our world is equivalent to the question whether physicalism is true at our world. By assuming that zombie worlds are accessible from our world, proponents of the zombie conceivability argument beg the question against physicalism. In other words, it is a mistake to assume that the metaphysical possibility of zombies entails that physicalism is false at our world. I will then consider what happens if a proponent of the zombie conceivability argument should insist that zombie worlds are accessible from our world. I will argue that the same ingredients used in the zombie conceivability argument—whatever exactly they might be—can be used to construct an argument to the opposite conclusion. At that point, we reach a stalemate between physicalism and property dualism: while the possibility of zombies entails property dualism, the possibility of other creatures entails physicalism. Since these two possibilities are mutually inconsistent, either one of them is not genuine or one of them is inaccessible from the actual world. To resolve this stalemate, we need more than traditional conceivability arguments.

О двух уровнях эпистемологии сознания

The article considers different approaches to investigating consciousness. The author claims that consciousness study can be divided into two different epistemological levels. The first level of the epistemology of subjectivity was developed by philosophers and rational psychologists during the period of Early Modern Time, and can be divided into ph-epistemology, i.e. the epistemology of physical facts including our bodies, and m-epistemology, i.e. the epistemology of mental events. In the XX century, by naturalizing mind and inventing new non-invasive tools in investigating our brain, the epistemology of subjectivity went to the next level. The author considers contemporary movements in philosophy of mind working on the second epistemological level: eliminative materialism, property dualism, functionalism and so-called mysterianism. The author suggests dividing the second level into r-epistemology, i.e. the reductive epistemology that reduces and identifies our consciousness activity with a set of neuronal, electro-chemical and physical processes in nature, and n-epistemology, i.e. the non-reductive epistemology that considers consciousness as an independent phenomenon in nature.

Consciousness and the Prospects for Substance Dualism

AbstractThere has in recent years been a significant surge of interest in non‐materialist accounts of the mind. Property dualists hold that all substances (concrete particulars that persist over time) are material, but mental properties are distinct from physical properties. Substance dualists maintain that the mind or person is a non‐material substance. This article considers the prospects for substance dualism given the current state of the debate. The best known type of substance dualism, Cartesian dualism, has traditionally faced a number of objections, but many contemporary philosophers have sought to avoid these by formulating novel versions of the view. I identify three central claims held in common by all forms of substance dualism, consider recent arguments for these claims, and assess how successfully different types of substance dualism respond to the traditional objections. I argue that most contemporary forms of the view still face one or more of three major challenges, from bundle theories of the self, from the recently developed “phenomenal concepts strategy”, and from worries about explanatory simplicity.

Emergence and Consciousness

AbstractMost definitions of radical emergentism characterize it epistemologically. This leads to misunderstandings and makes it hard to assess the doctrine's metaphysical worth. This paper puts forward purely metaphysical characterizations of emergentism and property emergence. It explores the nature of the necessitation relation between base and emergent and argues that emergentism entails a Humean account of causation and related relations. Then it presents arguments against emergentism, both as a wider metaphysic and as an account of consciousness. These maintain that emergentism makes implausible claims about how the world works. The paper also stresses the doctrine's contemporary relevance: most current property dualists endorse views effectively identical to classical emergentism less its historical commitment to novel emergent forces.

Thomistic Hylomorphism and Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Religion

AbstractContemporary philosophers of mind tend to accept either some version of dualism or physicalism when considering the mind–body problem. Likewise, recent philosophers of religion typically assume that we must work within these two categories when considering problems related to the possibility of bodily resurrection. Recently, some philosophers have reintroduced the Thomistic version of hylomorphism. In this article, we will consider the distinctive doctrines of Thomistic hylomorphism and how they can be used to address concerns about both the mind–body problem and the possibility of resurrection. We will see that hylomorphism allows for a novel version of emergent property dualism that is both metaphysically plausible and allows us to recognize the irreducibility of mental states and the possibility of resurrection without ignoring the fact of human embodiment. We will also discuss the currently lively debate among Thomistic hylomorphists who advocate opposed corruptionist and survivalist versions of the afterlife.

Using phenomenal concepts to explain away the intuition of contingency

Humans can think about their conscious experiences using a special class of “phenomenal” concepts. Psychophysical identity statements formulated using phenomenal concepts appear to be contingent. Kripke argued that this intuited contingency could not be explained away, in contrast to ordinary theoretical identities where it can. If the contingency is real, property dualism follows. Physicalists have attempted to answer this challenge by pointing to special features of phenomenal concepts that explain the intuition of contingency. However no physicalist account of their distinguishing features has proven to be satisfactory. Leading accounts rely on there being a phenomenological difference between tokening a physical-functional concept and tokening a phenomenal concept. This paper shows that existing psychological data undermine that claim. The paper goes on to suggest that the recalcitrance of the intuition of contingency may instead by explained by the limited means people typically have for applying their phenomenal concepts. Ways of testing that suggestion empirically are proposed.

É o naturalismo biológico uma concepção fisicalista?

This paper is concerned with the question as to whether biological naturalism (John Searle’s solution for the mind-body problem) can be construed as a physicalist account of the mind. Despite defending physicalism in connection with particulars (section 2), Searle accepts the dualists’ basic argument for the irreducibility of mental properties (section 3). However, Searle is unable to substantiate his claim that such irreducibility is compatible with physicalism (section 4). This being the case, his theory about the mind is shown to be a variety of property dualism.

On the Relationship between Subjective and Objective Properties in John Searle’s Biological Naturalism

The article examines John Searles’ theory of the relation between subjective and objective properties. Such relation is conceived by him as a peculiar way of causal supervenience, which consists of the relation between properties that cannot be identified as types. Since he conceives this supervenience as a mere result of the laws of nature, his ontology of the mind relapses into property dualism. Key words: Searle, supervenience, property dualism.

The ever-shifting problem of consciousness

The aim of this paper is to develop a new understanding of what the “problem of consciousness” is and to indicate why it cannot be solved conclusively. It is argued that the problem cannot be captured by a single question, such as the currently popular “How does the brain produce consciousness?” From a broader point of view, the problem of consciousness is a “problem-in-repetition” in the sense of Gilles Deleuze: that is, a series of questions that replace each other in different theoretical frameworks. The problem will shift when the theory changes, but it will not go away. A brief survey of mind–body theories given in this paper includes property dualism, materialism, substance dualism, eliminativism, idealism, panpsychism, and dual-aspect theory. We will probably never have a final theory of consciousness. But as a final theory would have to describe some kind of “reality,” this issue also depends on general ontological assumptions. Drawing on Henri Bergson, Deleuze suggests an ontology of “actuality” and “virtuality” that helps to explain why any reality and hence any theory of consciousness will leave room for further questions.

Is property dualism better off than substance dualism?

It is widely thought that mind–body substance dualism is implausible at best, though mere “property” dualism is defensible and even flourishing. This paper argues that substance dualism is no less plausible than property dualism and even has two advantages over it.

É incoerente a concepção de Searle sobre a consciência?

O artigo investiga a frequente alegação na literatura filosófica de que a concepção de Searle sobre a redução da consciência é incoerente. Após um exame das teses básicas de sua teoria da mente (seção 2), é discutida sua posição a respeito da identidade entre a consciência e a atividade cerebral (seção 3). Da adesão de Searle a uma tese da identidade de ocorrências deve-se concluir que não há contradição entre esta tese e a irredutibilidade ontológica que ele defende. Porém, é possível deduzir de sua teoria asserções que contradizem esta mesma teoria (seção 4), uma vez que essa irredutibilidade resulta em um dualismo de propriedades (seção 5).

Property Dualism and Substance Dualism

I attempt to rebut Dean Zimmerman's novel argument (2010), which he presents in support of substance dualism, for the conclusion that, in spite of its popularity, the combination of property dualism with substance materialism represents a precarious position in the philosophy of mind. I take issue with Zimmerman's contention that the vagueness of ‘garden variety’ material objects such as brains or bodies makes them unsuitable candidates for the possession of phenomenal properties. I also argue that the ‘speculative materialism’ that is available to a substance materialist property dualist who abandons the identification of persons with such garden variety objects is significantly more attractive than Zimmerman allows. Although I do not attempt to refute its substance dualist rival, I conclude that the combination of property dualism with substance materialism can withstand Zimmerman's objections.

Why property dualists must reject substance physicalism

I argue that property dualists cannot hold that minds are physical substances. The focus of my discussion is a property dualism that takes qualia to be sui generis features of reality.

I—Dean Zimmerman: From Property Dualism to Substance Dualism

Property dualism is enjoying a slight resurgence in popularity, these days; substance dualism, not so much. But it is not as easy as one might think to be a property dualist and a substance materialist. The reasons for being a property dualist support the idea that some phenomenal properties (or qualia) are as fundamental as the most basic physical properties; but what material objects could be the bearers of the qualia? If even some qualia require an adverbial construal (if they are modifications of the thing that is conscious because of them, not properties of something else to which the subject of consciousness is related), then the property dualist can be driven to speculative forms of materialism none of which, at this point, looks more likely to be true than the more modest versions of emergent dualism defended by contemporary substance dualists.

Powers and the Mind–Body Problem

This paper proposes a new line of attack on the conceivability argument for mind–body property dualism, based on the causal account of properties, according to which properties have their conditional powers essentially. It is argued that the epistemic possibility of physical but not phenomenal duplicates of actuality is identical to a metaphysical (understood as broadly logical) possibility, but irrelevant for establishing the falsity of physicalism. The proposed attack is in many ways inspired by a standard, broadly Kripkean approach to epistemic and metaphysical modality.

Consciousness and Modal Empiricism

David Chalmers supports his contention that there is a possible world populated by our zombie twins by arguing for the assumption that conceivability entails possibility. But, I argue, the modal epistemology he sets forth, ‘modal rationalism,’ ignores the problem of incompleteness and relies on an idealized notion of conceivability. As a consequence, this epistemology can’t justify our quotidian judgments of possibility, let alone those judgments that concern the mind/body connection. Working from the analogy that the imagination is to the possible as perception is to the actual, I set forth a competing epistemology, ‘modal empiricism.’ This epistemology survives the incompleteness objection and allows some of our everyday modal judgments to be justified. But this epistemology can’t justify the claim that Zombie World is possible, which leaves Chalmers’s property dualism without the support it needs.

Through Thick and Thin with Ned Block: How Not to Rebut the Property Dualism Argument

In “Max Black’s Objection to Mind–Body Identity,” Ned Block seeks to offer a definitive treatment of property dualism arguments that exploit modes of presentation. I will argue that Block’s central response to property dualism is confused. The property dualist can happily grant that mental modes of presentation have a hidden physical nature. What matters for the property dualist is not the hidden physical side of the property, but the apparent mental side. Once that ‘thin’ side is granted, the property dualist has won. I conclude that although Block is wrong to think that the property dualist must argue for so-called thin mental properties, Block, and the physicalist, are able to resist property dualism. But any attempt to bolster this resistance and do more than dogmatically assert the crucial identity runs a serious risk of undermining the physicalism it is meant to save.

Property Dualism, Epistemic Normativity and the Limits of Naturalism*

This paper examines some consequences of the (quasi‐)epiphenomenalism implied by a property dualistic view of phenomenal consciousness. The focus is upon the variation of phenomenal content over time. A thought‐experiment is constructed to support two claims. The weaker claim exhibits an incompatibility which arises in certain logically possible situations between a conscious subject’s epistemic norms and the requirement that one be aware of one’s conscious experience. This could be interpreted as providing some epistemic grounds for the postulation of bridging laws between the physical/functional and phenomenal domains. The stronger claim has it that the ontology of property dualism is not properly able to account for the certainty I have of being phenomenally conscious. The problem is viewed as resulting from the neglect of the intensional context involved in a proper representation of the argument for property dualism. It is argued that only a transcendental move can do justice to this certainty I have.

Neutral Monism and the Social Character of Consciousness

mind-body problem today resembles a battle-zone in which warring camps, including physicalists, property dualists, panpsychists (Shan 2003), and emergentists (Gonzalez, Broens, and Haselager 2004) clash on a darkling plain, each side regarding others' positions as radically unacceptable. Amid this struggle, neutral monism lies as a neglected option, treated as a historical position that has somehow failed. purpose of this essay is suggest that neutral monism is indeed solution to problem, and to outline a form of that theory which avoids some of drawbacks of previous versions. Defining Physicalism In affirming neutral monism, I shall be denying physicalism, and therefore it would be good to know that denial (and affirmation) of physicalism has content. More trouble has been generated than necessary over vagueness in term physicalism. Critics have pointed out that to assert that mind can be explained in terms of present-day is a booby-trapped theory, inasmuch as historical extrapolation strongly suggests that our physical theories will eventually be discarded in favor of new theories. Therefore it has been suggested that physicalism is doctrine that consciousness will be explicable by a physics.1 But there is no reason to think that there is or ever will be such a thing as a completed We could as well say that solution to mind-body problem is whatever answer Santa will bring us this year. Yet to say more vaguely that mind will be explained in terms of some future is still an empty position, since we do not know what conceptual transformations (that is, future science that will be called physics) will undergo.2 Therefore this physicalism reduces to saying that mind will be explained in terms of something or other. We should note also a graver danger than vagueness. We can foresee possibility that mind will be explained physically by cheating; that is, that palette of fundamental ideas used in will be enlarged by addition of mental entities. That new, augmented will be able to account for mind will produce bogus appearance that some epoch-making reduction has occurred. But semantic changes wrought by future generations are not our concern. We are no more responsible for applications our grandchildren may make of term physics than Kant was for crop of occult books that currently resides beneath label Metaphysics in bookstores. Yet a perfectly coherent and meaningful theory can be formulated by humbly adopting a definition of physics from American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed.) and defining physicalism as: The doctrine that mind can be explained in terms of science of matter and energy and of interactions between two. This is clear enough, at least if we remember to use physicists' definition of energy: the capacity for doing work, and steer clear of New Age use in which energy is a modish re-labeling of supernatural force that anthropologists call mana.3 As for matter, I stress that it is essentially an object, that is something derived from perception by abstracting away subject. proposed definition of physicalism avoids two perilous shoals. On one hand, it disentangles us from responsibility for how our descendants use word physics. On other hand, by refraining from specifying any particular physical theory, but only mapping out a kind of theory, definition does not tie us to any perishable propositions.4 Having defined physicalism, it is now possible meaningfully to deny it and seek a better alternative. Problems with Physicalism I shall not attempt a comprehensive refutation of physicalism here. My aim is different. I shall only refer to a couple of points that may be made against physicalism as a way of motivating alternative theory I wish to present. …

How Can Searle Avoid Property Dualism? Epistemic-Ontological Inference and Autoepistemic Limitation

Searle suggests biological naturalism as a solution to the mind-brain problem that escapes traditional terminology with its seductive pull towards either dualism or materialism. We reconstruct Searle's argument and demonstrate that it needs additional support to represent a position truly located between dualism and materialism. The aim of our paper is to provide such an additional argument. We introduce the concept of “autoepistemic limitation” that describes our principal inability to directly experience our own brain as a brain from the first-person perspective. The neglect of the autoepistemic limitation leads to inferences from epistemic properties to ontological features—we call this “epistemic-ontological inference.” Searle attempts to avoid such epistemic-ontological inference but does not provide a sufficient argument. Once the autoepistemic limitation is considered, epistemic-ontological inference can be avoided. As a consequence, one can escape traditional terminology with its seductive pull towards either dualism or materialism.