Conceivability, Possibility, and A Posteriori Necessity: on Chalmers’s Argument for Dualism

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Nov 26, 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.7.2006.197

Main Article Content

Karol Polcyn

Abstract

Chalmers claims that the conceivability of zombies implies their possibility and he supports this claim by arguing that there is no gap between conceivability and possibility since no such gap can be generated by necessary a posteriori truths. I will argue that while Chalmers is right to the extent that there is no gap between conceivability and possibility within the standard Kripkean model of a posteriori necessity, his general conclusion is not justified. This is because there might be a posteriori necessity understood in some non-Kripkean way and Chalmers has not shown that no such alternative understanding of a posteriori necessity is available.

Article Details

How to Cite
“Conceivability, Possibility, and A Posteriori Necessity: On Chalmers’s Argument for Dualism”. 2013. Diametros, no. 7 (November): 37-55. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.7.2006.197.
Issue
No. 7 (2006)
Section
Articles

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Author Biography

Karol Polcyn

absolwent filozofii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim, uzyskał doktorat z filozofii na Uniwersytecie Temple w Filadelfii w 2003 r., obecnie adiunkt w Instytucie Filozofii Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, publikował w Filozofii Nauki, Kwartalniku Filozoficznym i Principiach.

How to Cite

“Conceivability, Possibility, and A Posteriori Necessity: On Chalmers’s Argument for Dualism”. 2013. Diametros, no. 7 (November): 37-55. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.7.2006.197.
Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Block and Stalnaker [1999] – N. Block and R. Stalnaker, Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap, “The Philosophical Review” (108) 1999.

Brueckner [2001] – A. Brueckner, Chalmers’s conceivability argument for dualism, “Analysis” (61) 2001.

Chalmers [1996] – D. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996.

Chalmers [1998] – D. Chalmers, Mind and Modality, http://consc.net./chalmers/

Chalmers [1999] – D. Chalmers, Materialism and the Metaphysics of Modality, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research” (59) 1999.

Jackson [1997] – F. Jackson, Finding the Mind in the Natural World, [in:] The Nature of Consciousness, ed. N. Block, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1997.

Kripke [1980] – S. Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1980.

Loar [1997] – B. Loar, Phenomenal States, [in:] The Nature of Consciousness, ed. N. Block, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1997.

Papineau [1999] – D. Papineau, Mind the Gap, “Philosophical Perspectives” (12) 1999.