The conceivability argument and the intuition of dualism

Article Sidebar

PDF (Polish) PDF
Published: Jun 1, 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.24.2010.396

Main Article Content

Karol Polcyn

Abstract

Kripke’s antimaterialist argument, under David Papineau’s new interpretation, is not based on assuming that the conceivability of zombies entails possibility and does not lead to the conclusion that materialism is false but rather to the conclusion that we are all in the grip of the intuitive feeling that materialism is false. Leaving it open whether or not Papineau’s interpretation of Kripke’s argument is correct, I argue here that by appealing to the intuition of dualism we can see that the conceivability of zombies is not a reliable guide to possibility.

Article Details

How to Cite
“The Conceivability Argument and the Intuition of Dualism”. 2010. Diametros, no. 24 (June): 90-106. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.24.2010.396.
Issue
No. 24 (2010)
Section
Other 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

Karol Polcyn - dr, Instytut Filozofii, Uniwersytet Szczeciński

How to Cite

“The Conceivability Argument and the Intuition of Dualism”. 2010. Diametros, no. 24 (June): 90-106. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.24.2010.396.
Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Bealer [2002] – G. Bealer, Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance, [in:] Conceiv- ability and Possibility, T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002: 71-126.

Block [2006] – N. Block, Max Black’s Objection to Mind-Body Identity, [in:] Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism, T. Alter & S. Walter (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York 2006: 249-306.

Bloom [2004] – P. Bloom, Descartes’ Baby, Basic Books, New York 2004.

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

Chalmers [1999] – D. Chalmers, Materialism and the Metaphysics of Modality, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research”, 59 (2) 1999: 473-496.

Chalmers [2002] – D. Chalmers, Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?, [in:] Conceivability and Possibility, T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002: 145-200

Chalmers [2006a] – D. Chalmers, The Two-Dimensional Argument against Materialism, [in:] The Character of Consciousness, D. Chalmers (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.

Chalmers [2006b] – D. Chalmers, Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap, [in:] Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge, T. Alter & S. Walter (ed.), Oxford Uni- versity Press, New York 2006: 167-194.

Hill [1997] – C. Hill, Imaginability, Conceivability, Possibility and the Mind-Body Problem, “Philosophical Studies” 87 (1) 1997: 61-85.

Hill & McLaughlin [1999] – C. Hill & B. McLaughlin, There are Fewer Things in Reality Than are Dreamt of in Chalmers’ Philosophy, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Re- search” 59 (2) 1999: 445-454.

Jackson [1998] – F. Jackson, From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998.

Kripke [1980] – S. Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Blackwell, Oxford 1980.

Levine [1983] – J. Levine, Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap, “Pacific Philosophical Quarterly” (64) 1983: 354-361.

Levine [2001] – J. Levine, Purple Haze, Oxford University Press, New York 2001.

Levine [2006] – J. Levine, Phenomenal Concepts and the Materialist Constraint, [in:] Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge, T. Alter & S. Walter (ed.), Oxford Univer- sity Press, New York 2006: 145-166.

Loar [1997] – B. Loar, Phenomenal States, [in:] The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates, N. Block, O. Flanagan, G. Güzeldere (ed.), MIT Press, 1997: 597-616.

Loar [1999] – B. Loar, David Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind, “Philosophy and Phenomenological Research” 59 (2) 1999: 465-472.

Loar [2003] – B. Loar, Qualia, Properties, Modality, “Philosophical Issues” 13 (1) 2003: 113-129.

Melnyk [2003] – A. Melnyk, Papineau on the Intuition of Distinctness, SWIF Philosophy of Mind Review (4) 2003; available at: http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/mind/forums/004-0003.htm (accessed 25 May 2008).

Nagel [1974] – T. Nagel, What Is It Like to be a Bat?, “Philosophical Review” 83 (4) 1974: 435-450.

Papineau [1993] – D. Papineau, Physicalism, Consciousness and the Antipathetic Fallacy, “Australasian Journal of Philosophy” 71 (2) 1993: 169-183.

Papineau [2002] – D. Papineau, Thinking about Consciousness, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002.

Papineau [2006] – D. Papineau, Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts, [in:] Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge, T. Alter & S. Walter (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York 2006: 111-144.

Papineau [2007a] – D. Papineau, Kripke’s Proof That We Are All Intuitive Dualists, Forthcoming.

Papineau [2007b] – D. Papineau, Kripke’s Proof is Ad Hominem not Two-Dimensional, “Philosophical Perspectives“ 21 (1) 2007: 475-494.

Yablo [2000] – S. Yablo, Textbook Kripkeanism and the Open Texture of Concepts, “Pacific Philosophical Quarterly” 81 (1) 2000: 98-122.