Knowledge Argument

This thesis aims to provide a compelling and distinctive response to the Problem of Consciousness. This is achieved by offering a bipartite analysis of the epistemic gap at the heart of that problem, and by building upon the hypothesis that the apparent problem is symptomatic of our limited conception of the physical.
Chapter 1 introduces the problem. The key question is whether phenomenal consciousness is onticly dependent on the physical, or onticly independent of it. There are powerful arguments for the Primitivist view that consciousness is independent of the physical. These arguments rest on the apparent epistemic gap between the physical and the phenomenal. I propose that this apparent gap must be understood as a composite of two deeper conceptual gaps pertaining to the subjective character and qualitative character of consciousness respectively. The ‘–tivity gap’ claims that physical states are objective, phenomenal states are subjective and that there is no entailment from the objective to the subjective. The ‘–trinsicality gap’ claims that physical properties are extrinsic (structural), that phenomenal qualities are intrinsic (non-structural) and that there is no entailment from the extrinsic to the intrinsic. After refining the case for Primitivism, I consider the compelling reasons for rejecting Primitivism in favour of Physicalism. The challenge posed by the Problem of Consciousness is to resolve this antinomy between Primitivism and Physicalism.
In Chapter 2 I consider standard responses to the problem. The failings of these positions lead me to introduce three criteria that an adequate response must satisfy. I reject the view that Primitivism can be salvaged, and hold that a satisfactory response to the problem must protect Physicalism. I reject standard ‘Type-A’ responses according to which there is no epistemic gap between the physical and the phenomenal, and argue that a satisfactory response cannot deny the manifest reality of phenomenal consciousness. Finally, I reject ‘Type-B’ responses according to which the epistemic gap does not entail ontic distinctness. I hold that if Physicalism is true, the entailment from the physical facts to the phenomenal facts must be knowable a priori for an epistemically ideal subject.
Chapter 3 evaluates a non-standard Type-A response to the Problem of Consciousness which promises to satisfy all three criteria. According to Stoljar’s Epistemic View (EV), consciousness only seems inexplicable in physical terms because we have a limited conception of the physical. I argue that EV should be supported iff two demanding challenges can be met: the Relevance Condition requires adequate reason to believe that unknown physical properties could address the –tivity gap and the –trinsicality gap. The Integration Condition requires adequate reason to believe that there is a specific blind-spot in our current conception of the physical that is plausibly occupied by properties that perform the requisite explanatory role. To satisfy these conditions, the advocate of EV must make positive claims about the content of our proposed ignorance.
In Chapter 4 I argue that EV stands or falls with the plausibility of the Russellian Ignorance Hypothesis (RIH). According to RIH, we have no concepts of the intrinsic properties of physical entities, and those intrinsic properties are integral to the physical explanation of consciousness. I argue that we are indeed conceptually ignorant of intrinsic physical properties. I also argue that RIH meets the Integration Condition, and goes some way to satisfying the Relevance Condition. RIH plausibly undermines the –trinsicality gap by showing that some physical properties are intrinsic, though they are beyond our current conception. The apparent gap is then an illusion resulting from the fact that all known physical properties are extrinsic. RIH fails, however, to address the –tivity gap. I conclude that no version of EV can offer a full response to the Problem of Consciousness.
In Chapter 5 I explore an entirely different kind of response to the Problem of Consciousness. Representationalism claims that consciousness is explicable in terms of intentional properties, and that intentional properties are explicable in terms of physical properties. I argue that standard Representationalist proposals are unable to account for the qualitative character of conscious states, and diagnose this failure in terms of the –trinsicality gap. However, the prospects for a Representationalist account of subjective character are more promising. Specifically, Kriegel’s Self-Representationalism holds that a mental state is a phenomenal state in virtue of suitably representing itself. I argue that this proposal plausibly addresses the –tivity gap.
RIH and Self-Representationalism each deal with one of the two apparent conceptual gaps between the physical and the phenomenal, but not the other. In Chapter 6 I develop a hybrid proposal that combines the best of both positions. The ‘Neo-Russellian Ignorance Hypothesis’ (NRIH) claims that a mental state is a phenomenal state at all in virtue of suitably representing itself, and has its qualitative character in virtue of the intrinsic physical properties involved in its implementation. I expand this claim and defend it against a number of potential criticisms. I also explore the relationship between its two components, suggesting that they are each founded on a common epistemic insight. I argue that NRIH successfully addresses the –tivity and –trinsicality gaps and, moreover, that it provides a compelling account of why consciousness appears to be inexplicable in physical terms. I conclude that NRIH offers a powerful response to the Problem of Consciousness that successfully undermines the case for Primitivism. Furthermore, I conclude that NRIH has substantial advantages over competing attempted responses, and offers the best possible way of capitalising on the insights of EV and Representationalism.

This paper presents and defends an alternative version to the so-called strategy of phenomenal concepts (aka PCS) in defense of type B materialism in Jackson’s knowledge argument. Endorsing Ball and Tye’s criticism, I argue in favor of the following claims. First: Mary’s newly acquired content is nonconceptual in the light of all available criteria. Second: Mary’s acquisition of such content is precisely what allows us to explain, at least in part, both her epistemic progress (once released from her confinement) and the increase in her expertize regarding her old PHENOMENAL RED. However, although the acquisition of such nonconceptual content is indispensable, it is sufficient to explain Mary’s epistemic progress. Third: assuming that concepts are mental files, after undergoing the visual experiences of red for the first time, such
newly acquired nonconceptual content goes through a process of “digitization” so that it can be stored in the mental file PHENOMENAL RED. Fourth and final claim: it is based on this concept of PHENOMENAL RED, now phenomenally enriched by the newly acquired nonconceptual content, that Mary is able to identify introspectively the phenomenal red of her new experience.

This book is about the identity theory in contemporary philosophy of mind containing a long essay of mine and the italian translations of some remarkable contributions by Place. Armstrong, Smart, Lewis, McGinn, Jackson. The book has been published by Le Monnier, Firenze, 2005.

The Knowledge Argument is an argument for dualism that claims that there are both physical and non-physical facts, something we can know by reflecting on ‘Mary’ who is aware of all scientific data about colours but has yet to see any. I reject the dualist conclusion and instead provide a new physicalist response that I call ‘bifactualism’. Bifactualism is a novel physicalist account comprising two elements. First, like dualism, it distinguishes between two kinds of facts: general and particular facts. Second, unlike dualism, it claims that the general/particular distinction (and not any physical/non-physical distinction) may explain facts about experience. There are certain facts that go undocumented in what is expressible in the language of the physical sciences because the language of physical sciences concerns only general facts, whereas experience, I argue, essentially involves learning particular facts.  Thus I argue that the case of Mary does not support mind/body dualism, and instead provides at least equal reason to support bifactualism. Since the general/particular distinction is one we are stuck with regardless of the status of mind, bifactualism emerges as a more parsimonious and hence preferable account of experience.

This article discusses a kind of knowledge classifiable as knowledge-wh but which seems to defy analysis in terms of the standard reductive theory of knowledge-wh ascriptions, according to which they are true if and only if one knows that p, where this proposition is an acceptable answer to the wh-question ‘embedded’ in the ascription. Specifically, it is argued that certain cases of knowing what an experience is like resist such treatment. I argue that in some of these cases, one can know that p, where an acceptable answer to the question ‘What’s the experience like?’ is that p, but where one does not know what the experience is like. This could point to the distinctiveness of this sort of knowledge.

This paper attempts to argue for a defense of Frank Jackson's seminal Knowledge Argument against metaphysical materialism. By first presenting the argument and then directly responding to notable objections from philosophical academia, I seek to demonstrate not that Jackson's argument is certainly sound in its refutation of materialism, but that the degree of confidence with which his premises imply his conclusion ultimately establish a form of property dualism as more philosophically tenable and likely than any variant of materialism.

Daniel Dennett has argued that consciousness can be satisfactorily accounted for in terms of physical entities and processes.  In some of his most recent publications, he has made this case by casting doubts on purely conceptual thought experiments and proposing his own thought experiments to “pump” the intuition that consciousness can be physical.  In this paper, I will summarize Dennett’s recent defenses of physicalism, followed by a careful critique of his position.  The critique presses two flaws in Dennett’s defense of physicalism.  First, I will rebut his case against the traditional conceptual arguments against physicalism.  Second, I will present some empirical grounds (empirical scientific findings on blind sight and tactile vision substitute systems) for thinking that a crucial move in the argument against physicalism is well-supported.  For someone, like Dennett, who finds conceptual arguments dubious, the empirical findings make it exceptionally difficult to deny the anti-physicalist argument.

Tesi di laurea triennale in Filosofia, sotto la supervisione del prof. Andrea Zhok. Il knowledge argument di Frank Jackson è stato, fin dalla sua pubblicazione nel 1982, oggetto di intesi dibattiti nell'ambito della filosofia della mente. La tesi ricostruisce l'argomento nei suoi punti di forza e nelle sue criticità, cercando di trovare i motivi che hanno spinto lo stesso autore a rigettarlo.

Thesis for B.A. in Philosophy, under the supervision of prof. Andrea Zhok. The Knowledge argument, by Frank Jackson, has raised many debates in contemporary philosophy of mind, since its publication in 1982. The paper analyses the argument in both its strenghts and weaknesses, aiming to explain the reasons that led the author to reject it.

It is often thought that consciousness has a qualitative dimension that cannot be tracked by science. Recently, however, some philosophers have argued that this worry stems not from an elusive feature of the mind, but from the special nature of the concepts used to describe conscious states. Marc Champagne draws on the neglected branch of philosophy of signs or semiotics to develop a new take on this strategy. 

The term “semiotics” was introduced by John Locke in the modern period – its etymology is ancient Greek, and its theoretical underpinnings are medieval. Charles Sanders Peirce made major advances in semiotics, so he can act as a pipeline for these forgotten ideas. Most philosophers know Peirce as the founder of American pragmatism, but few know that he also coined the term “qualia,” which is meant to capture the intrinsic feel of an experience. Since pragmatic verification and qualia are now seen as conflicting commitments, Champagne endeavors to understand how Peirce could (or thought he could) have it both ways. The key, he suggests, is to understand how humans can insert distinctions between features that are always bound.

Recent attempts to take qualities seriously have resulted in versions of panpsychism, but Champagne outlines a more plausible way to achieve this. So, while semiotics has until now been the least known branch of philosophy ending in –ics, his book shows how a better understanding of that branch can move one of the liveliest debates in philosophy forward.

I will be talking about the limits of cognitive science. I won’t be talking about contingent shortcomings that could perhaps be remedied with, say, more time, resources, or ingenuity. Rather, I will be concerned with limitations that are “baked into” the very enterprise. The main blind spot, I will argue, is consciousness—but not for the reasons typically given...

The debate about Mary and the Black and White Room is a merry-go-round. It rotates round a mistake shared on both sides. The mistake is to adopt the position I call physics-alism—to think that physics can give an exhaustive characterization of the nature of the physical. It’s this that makes it seem to some philosophers that Mary raises a difficult and perhaps insoluble problem for physicalism.

This paper suggests that reference to phenomenal qualities is best understood as involving iconicity, that is, a passage from sign-vehicle to object that exploits a similarity between the two. This contrasts with a version of the ‘phenomenal concept strategy’ that takes indexicality to be central. However, since it is doubtful that phenomenal qualities are capable of causally interacting with anything, indexical reference seems inappropriate. While a theorist like David Papineau is independently coming to something akin to iconicity, I think some of the awkwardness that plagues his account would be remedied by transitioning to a more inclusive philosophy of signs.

Frank Jackson argues that physical facts are not sufficient for knowing all there is to know about certain phenomena, such as seeing the colour red. Some object to him that, within his Mary's Room thought experiment, Jackson makes the mistake of assuming Mary learns new facts rather than merely gaining a new ability to represent something in a different way. That is to say, the objection holds that Mary gains a representational ability that provides her with the same fact in a different way. However, this objection relies on a shallow reading of Jackson. Using a variety of sources Jackson seems to support, namely, Nagel, Husserl, and Heidegger, it seems one can understand Jackson as making a claim that there are necessary truths about subjective experience that physical facts cannot capture. The difference here is that the truths uncovered are necessarily related to subjectivity, and thus, any scientific or physical explanation of those phenomena are impossible.

I argue physicalism should be characterized as the thesis that all behavior is law-governed. This characterization captures crucial desiderata for a formulation of physicalism, including its broad import and worldview defining features. It also has more local virtues, such as avoiding Hempel's dilemma. A particularly important implication, I argue, is that this thesis makes the question of the mind's physicality turn on what the mind can do-rather than what experience is (qualitatively or subjectively) like.

The objective of this paper is to defend the non-reductive thesis of phenomenal consciousness. This paper will give an overview of the arguments for the non-reductive explanation of phenomenal consciousness and justify why the reductionist approach is implausible in the context of explaining phenomenal subjective experience. The debate between reductionist and non-reductionist on the project of Demystifying and Mystifying phenomenal consciousness is driven by two fundamental assumptions-1) Reductive-Naturalistic Objectivism, 2) Phenomenal Realism. There are several arguments for the irreducibility of phenomenal consciousness; this paper will focus on the inverted spectrum argument, knowledge argument, and the conceivability argument.

In this paper, I argue against the phenomenal concept strategy (henceforth PCS) and in favor of what Chalmers has called type-A materialism ([2006], [2010] p. 111). On her release, Mary makes no cognitive discovery at all; not even a thin non-possibility-eliminating discovery, as Tye has recently claimed [2012]. When she is imprisoned, Mary already knows everything that is to be known about the phenomenal character of her experiences. What Mary acquires is a new non-cognitive and nonconceptual representation.

I defend Frank Jackson's knowledge argument against physicalism in the philosophy of mind from a criticism that has been advanced by Laurence Nemirow and David Lewis. According to their criticism, what Mary lacked when she was in her black and white room was a set of abilities; she did not know how to recognize or imagine certain types of experience from a first-person perspective. Her subsequent discovery of what it is like to experience redness amounts to no more than her acquisition of these abilities. The physicalist can admit this, since it does not commit one to the view that there are any facts of which Mary was ignorant (in spite of her exhaustive knowledge of truths about the physical world). I argue against this view, on the grounds that the knowledge of what an experience is like cannot be equated with the possession of any set of abilities.

Quantities like mass and temperature are properties that come in degrees. And those degrees (e.g. 5 kg) are properties that are called the magnitudes of the quantities. Some philosophers (e.g., Byrne 2003; Byrne & Hilbert 2003; Schroer 2010) talk about magnitudes of phenomenal qualities as if some of our phenomenal qualities are quantities. The goal of this essay is to explore the anti-physicalist implication of this apparently innocent way of conceptualizing phenomenal quantities. I will first argue for a metaphysical thesis about the nature of magnitudes based on Yablo's proportionality requirement of causation. Then, I will show that, if some phenomenal qualities are indeed quantities, there can be no demonstrative concepts about some of our phenomenal feelings. That presents a significant restriction on the way physicalists can account for the epistemic gap between the phenomenal and the physical. I'll illustrate the restriction by showing how that rules out a popular physicalist response to the Knowledge Argument. [word count excluding footnotes: 7028]

​The phenomenal concept strategy for defending physicalism against the knowledge argument is to substitute a dualism of concepts for a dualism of properties. The idea is that when Mary sees a red object for the first time, she acquires a phenomenal concept for the experience of red. But what is a phenomenal concept? To answer this question, Balog, Block, and Papineau have independently developed a quotational-indexical account according to which phenomenal concepts are partly constituted by phenomenal experiences. However, Michael Tye has argued against the phenomenal concept strategy, and it is unclear whether the quotational-indexical account can overcome his objections. I show how the quotational-indexical account can handle Tye’s objections by making a crucial concession. I then argue that once this concession is made, the account can no longer address the knowledge argument. I conclude that if the phenomenal concept strategy depends on the quotational-indexical account, then it fails.

This paper is both systematic and historical in nature. From a historical viewpoint, I aim to show that to establish Wittgenstein's claim that " an 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria " (PI §580) there is an enthymeme in Wittgenstein's private language argument (henceforth PLA) overlooked in the literature, namely Wittgenstein's suggestion that both perceptual and bodily experiences are transparent in the relevant sense that one cannot point to a mental state and wonder " What is that? " From a systematic viewpoint, I aim to show that Wittgenstein's PLA teaches us that the prevailing picture of the nature of phenomenal concepts (henceforth PCs) is upside down: we can only introspectively know what is going on inside our heads, after we learn of what is going on outside (PI §580). In this regard, I aim to defend two associate claims against the prevailing view of PCs on the basis of PLA. First, by means of transparency, I aim to show that there is no de re awareness of our private sensation that could determine the meaning of sensation-words; for example, I am never aware of the phenomenal blueness of my experience of something blue. The second associated claim is that introspective self-knowledge of our private sensation is always de dicto. We can only know introspectively that phenomenal blueness is the phenomenal character of the experience we are undergoing after we have learned that (de dicto knowledge) blue is the color that usually causes in us that kind of experience. Likewise, we can only introspectively know that pain is the phenomenal character of the experience we are undergoing after we have learned that pain is what usually causes some typical pain behavior.

In this thesis, I argue that empathy is morally significant because it plays an important role in informing our moral deliberations. Empathy should be thought of not as an alternative to rational deliberation about how we are to act, but rather as an important input into such deliberation.

I focus on exploring what we learn when we empathize with the suffering of another person. Standard epistemic defences of empathy say only that such empathy will give us knowledge of which affective states the suffering person is feeling. I add to those defences by arguing that empathy with a suffering person also gives us additional types of knowledge about the affective states that this person is feeling. Most significantly, I argue that empathizing with a suffering person gives us knowledge of the strength of one of our reasons to help that person. I call this the Normative Epistemic Claim.

In chapter 1, I contextualize my approach within the recent philosophical discussion of empathy. In the following chapter, I explore the relationship between empathy and altruism, and argue that there is an unanswered question about how empathy gives rise to altruistic motivation. I suggest that we should answer this question by considering the idea that empathy gives us phenomenal knowledge about the affective states of other people. I defend this idea in chapter 3, where I also relate it to the debate about phenomenal knowledge that has been stimulated by Frank Jackson’s example of Mary, the scientist who comes to see colour for the first time. In chapter 4, I begin to show the importance of phenomenal knowledge to moral deliberation. I argue that by giving us such knowledge, empathy with a suffering person also gives us knowledge of how intrinsically bad that person’s suffering is for them. In chapter 5, I extend this approach to defend the Normative Epistemic Claim. Finally, in chapter 6, I summarize the role of empathy in moral deliberation and broaden my discussion to include consideration of the significance that empathy has in inhibiting harming and in directing us to promote the joy of other people.

The objective of this paper is to defend the non-reductive thesis of phenomenal consciousness. This paper will give an overview of the arguments for the non-reductive explanation of phenomenal consciousness and justify why the reductionist approach is implausible in the context of explaining phenomenal subjective experience. The debate between reductionist and non-reductionist on the project of Demystifying and Mystifying phenomenal consciousness is driven by two fundamental assumptions-1) Reductive-Naturalistic Objectivism, 2) Phenomenal Realism. There are several arguments for the irreducibility of phenomenal consciousness; this paper will focus on the inverted spectrum argument, knowledge argument, and the conceivability argument.

Jackson’s (1982) formulation of the knowledge argument (KA) has had an inestimable influence on the discussion of consciousness and the apparent problem it presents for physicalism. A common objection to KA is the ‘ignorance objection’. According to this objection, our intuitions about Mary merely reflect our ignorance of physical facts that are integral to the explanation of phenomenal consciousness (e.g. Dennett 1991; Stoljar 2006). Armed with the insights of a future science, Mary would actually be able to deduce what it’s like to see red. We only have the intuition that Mary would learn something new because we don’t know the things she knows. Those sympathetic to KA have brushed away the ignorance objection on the grounds that even though we don’t know what the future science of consciousness will reveal, we do know what kind of facts it will contain and know that this is the wrong kind of fact from which to deduce facts about phenomenal consciousness. In other words, they suggest that the insight that underwrites KA is ‘future-proof’: it is not the kind of insight that could be displaced by new scientific knowledge. I argue that this strategy for defending KA is dialectically problematic and reveals a fundamental limitation of the argument.

Neste artigo, apresento e defendo uma versao alternativa a chamada estrategia dos conceitos fenomenais em defesa do materialismo tipo B no classico argumento do conhecimento de Jackson. Endossando a critica de Ball e Tye a estrategia dos conceitos fenomenais, argumento em favor das seguintes teses. Primeira tese: o conteudo recem-adquirido por Mary e de natureza naoconceitual a luz de todos criterios disponiveis. Segunda tese: aquisicao por Mary de tal conteudo e justamente o que os permite explicar, ao menos em parte, tanto o seu progresso epistemico (uma vez liberta do seu confinamento) quanto o incremento da sua expertise relativa ao seu antigo conceito VERMELHO FENOMENAL. Entretanto, embora a aquisicao de tal conteudo nao-conceitual seja indispensavel, ele sao e suficiente para a explicacao do progresso epistemico realizado Mary. Terceira tese, assumindo que conceitos seja arquivos mentais, apos a realizacao das experiencias visuais de vermelho pela primeira vez, tal conteudo na...

Bilgi edinmenin en etkili yollarından bir tanesi olarak değerlendirilen düşünce deneyleri bilim insanları ya da düşünürler tarafından kendi çalışma alanları içerisinde sıklıkla başvurulan düşünsel bir araçtır. Bilimsel konulara cevap vermek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen düşünce deneyleri bilimsel düşünce deneyleri olarak değerlendirilirken, felsefi sorunlara yönelik kullanılan düşünce deneyleri ise felsefi düşünce deneyleri olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu kapsamda makalede ilk olarak bilimsel ve felsefi düşünce deneyleri arasındaki farklılıklar belirlenmektedir. Özellikle, epistemoloji alanı içerisinde yer alan tartışmalarda felsefi düşünce deneylerine sıklıkla ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışmanın devamında epistemolojide önemli görüşlerden bir tanesi olan ve doğal dünyanın en temelde fiziksel olduğu ve fiziksel yasalarla her şeyin açıklanabileceği iddiasında bulunan fizikalizm düşüncesine karşı ileri sürülmüş bilgi argümanına yer verilmektedir. Bilgi argümanı kısaca sadece bilinçli deneyim yoluyla elde edilebilen ve fiziksel olarak ifade edilemeyen öznel deneyimlerin ve özelliklerin olduğunu savunmaktadır. Buna göre, başka bir bilinçli varlık hakkında bütün fiziksel bilgiye sahip olan birinin, o varlığın qualia gibi öznel deneyimlerine sahip olmasının nasıl bir his olduğu konusundaki bilgilerden yoksun olabileceği fikri savunulmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, makalenin temel savı fizikalizm gibi epistemolojik bir teze Mary’nin Odası, ‘Yarasa Olmak Nasıl Bir Şeydir’, Marslı ve Felsefi Zombi gibi felsefi düşünce deneyleri bağlamında çeşitli filozoflarca nasıl itiraz edildiğini ve düşünce deneylerinin bu bağlamda nasıl kullanıldığını ortaya koymaktır. - Thought experiments, one of the most effective ways of acquiring knowledge, are an intellectual tool frequently used by scientists or thinkers in their fields of study. Thought experiments used to respond to scientific issues are considered scientific thought experiments, while thought experiments used for philosophical problems are called philosophical thought experiments. In this context, firstly, the differences between scientific and philosophical thought experiments are determined in the article. In particular, philosophical thought experiments are often needed in discussions within the field of epistemology. For this reason, in the rest of the study, the knowledge argument put forward against the idea of physicalism, which is one of the important views in epistemology and which claims that the natural world is basically physical and that everything can be explained by physical laws is included. The knowledge argument briefly argues that there are non-physical properties and information that can only be discovered through conscious experience. Accordingly, it is argued that someone who has all physical knowledge about another conscious may lack knowledge of what it would feel like to have subjective experiences of that entity such as qualia. Consequently, the main idea of the article is to reveal how an epistemological thesis has been questioned by various philosophers in the context of philosophical thought experiments such as Mary’s room, ‘What is it like to be a Bat’, The Martian and the Philosophical Zombie.

The objective of this paper is to defend the non-reductive thesis of phenomenal consciousness. This paper will give an overview of the arguments for the non-reductive explanation of phenomenal consciousness and justify why the reductionist approach is implausible in the context of explaining phenomenal subjective experience. The debate between reductionist and non-reductionist on the project of Demystifying and Mystifying phenomenal consciousness is driven by two fundamental assumptions-1) Reductive-Naturalistic Objectivism, 2) Phenomenal Realism. There are several arguments for the irreducibility of phenomenal consciousness; this paper will focus on the inverted spectrum argument, knowledge argument, and the conceivability argument.

This paper revisits some classic thought experiments in which experiences are detached from their characteristic causal roles, and it explores what these thought experiments tell us about qualia epiphenomenalism, i.e., the view that qualia are epiphenomenal properties. It argues that qualia epiphenomenalism is true just in case it is (nomologically) possible for experiences of the same type to have entirely different causal profiles. One conclusion is that even if qualia epiphenomenalism is false, it is not obvious that it is false. Connections between qualia epiphenomenalism, physicalism and nonphysicalist property dualism are further explored.

Este artigo é uma nova defesa do materialismo tipo B contra o argumento do conhecimento de Jackson (1982), inspirado pela principal oposição kantiana entre conceitos e intuições sensíveis. Como todos os materialistas do tipo B, argumento que, ao sair de seu quarto preto-e-branco, Mary faz progressos cognitivos. No entanto, ao contrário da chamada estratégia de conceito fenomenal, não creio que tal progresso possa ser explicado em termos da aquisição de novos conceitos. Também rejeito a explicação recente de Tye segundo a qual o progresso cognitivo de Mary poderia ser compreendido pela aquisição de um conhecimento por contato (knowledge by acquaintance). O que é crucial não é a oposição russelliana entre conhecer coisas e conhecer verdades, mas sim a oposição kantiana entre representações conceituais e não-conceituais das mesmas propriedades. O conhecimento fenomenal de Mary é aqui explicado como o resultado da cooperação de sua recém-adquirida representação não-conceitual com uma representação conceitual que Mary já possuía de uma mesma propriedade.

This paper suggests that it is largely a want of notional distinctions which fosters the "explanatory gap" that has beset the study of consciousness since T. Nagel's revival of the topic. Modifying Ned Block's controversial claim that we should countenance a "phenomenal module" which exists in its own right, we argue that there is a way to recuperate the intuitions he appeals to without engaging in an onerous reification of the facet in question. By renewing with the full type/token/tone trichotomy developed by C. S. Peirce, we think the distinctness Block (rightly) calls attention to can be seen as stemming not from any separate module lurking within the mind, but rather from our ability to prescind qualities from occurrences.

Thema dieses Aufsatzes sind die Bedingungen für den Erwerb und die Speicherung von Begriffen, die auf sekundäre Eigenschaften – und zwar speziell auf Farbeigenschaften – referieren. Der in der zeitgenössischen Philosophie vorherrschende Empirismus hinsichtlich des Erwerbs von Farbbegriffen besagt: S erwirbt den Farbbegriff F nur dann, wenn S phänomenale Erlebnisse gemacht hat, die von einem Gegenstand, der die durch den Farbbegriff F bezeichnete Farbe aufweist, auf geeignete Weise kausal verursacht sind. Der Empirismus hinsichtlich des Erwerbs von Farbbegriffen geht Hand in Hand mit dem Empirismus hinsichtlich der Speicherung von Farbbegriffen: S hat zum Zeitpunkt t2 den zum Zeitpunkt t1 erworbenen Farbbegriff F nur dann gespeichert, wenn S zum Zeitpunkt t2 persönliche Erinnerungen an das phänomenale Erlebnis haben kann, welches von einem Gegenstand, der die durch den Farbbegriff F bezeichnete Farbe aufweist, zum Zeitpunkt t1 auf geeignete Weise kausal verursacht wurde. Gegen den Empirismus hinsichtlich des Erwerbs von Farbbegriffen wird ins Feld geführt, daß man einen Farbbegriff erwerben kann, auch ohne die bezeichnete Farbe gesehen zu haben. Der Besitz des Begriffes rot erfordert kein Wissen hinsichtlich der phänomenalen Qualität eines Roteindrucks. Gegen den Empirismus hinsichtlich der Speicherung von Farbbegriffen wird gezeigt, daß visuelle Erinnerungen an die phänomenalen Qualitäten von Farbeindrücken keine notwendige Bedingung für die Speicherung von Farbbegriffen darstellen.

This article answer some criticisms raised against How hard is it to create values? and offers a further formulation of the hard problem of value. Section 1 addresses the objection that Nietzsche’s criterion of life is too vague to serve as a useful value standard. Section 2 expands on the important idea of appreciating the difference among value perspectives. Sections 3 and 4 present the “hard problem of value” as a challenge for Nietzschean value agonism and value nihilism respectively. Section 5 offers a further formulation of the “hard problem of value”: a thought experiment about Mary, an expert, anti-realist value creator, whose values may or may not lack some qualities, analogous to Mary, the colour scientist of the “knowledge argument”.

Argumentative thought experiments are structurally conditional clauses. They can hence be formalized by means of the principle of modus ponendo ponens, as well as of modus tollendo tollens. In contrast to the practice in formal logic, exponents of argumentative thought experiments claim that the logical validity of a conclusion drawn within the framework of a particular conditional argument also holds beyond the particular conditional in question. In this paper, I articulate the criticism that this claim is wrong by arguing that the counterfactual scenario sets itself the most determinant premise. If the counterfactual scenario sets the initial conditional premise of the argument, then its true conclusion holds only as a counterfactual truth. The present paper illustrates this criticism using Frank Jackson’s thought experiment, the so-called knowledge argument, as a concrete example.

It has been more than thirty years since Frank Jackson put forward his thought experiment "Mary the Color Scientist" (also known as "The Knowledge Argument") to challenge physicalism. Mary is an imaginary scientist who has lived all her life in a black-and-white room, who learns about all the facts about color and color vision that can be acquired from books which carry all the information coming from a completed and perfect science of physics and neurobiology; but when she goes out of the room one day, coming across a red object and having an experience of red for the first time, she learns something new. She learns about "what it is like to see red", and from this Jackson concludes that physicalism is false, as there are psychological facts (facts about visual experiences) that cannot be obtained from such books of physical sciences. Most people have challenged Jackson's argument by claiming either that Mary wouldn't learn anything new upon experiencing her first red object, or that she merely acquires a new concept that provides information about a fact she already knew. Equal attention has not been given to challenging a hidden premise of Jackson's argument, the premise that one can acquire knowledge of all physical facts through a propositional, non-experiential format. I will challenge that premise from an intentionalist (or "representationalist") point-of-view: Mary does indeed lack some knowledge of experiencing red, but this is merely because she lacks knowledge of the intentional object of the state, the intentional object being the color quality represented by the experience, a quality that cannot be directly represented in a propositional or conceptual form. It is not an ignorance of a mental property like "qualia" or "what-it-is-likeness". However, this analysis implies that the color red is not identical to the microphysical properties referred to in physics books, and one has to choose between an eliminativist or emergentist view of color. I will argue in favor of the second option. The emergentist view of color implies that colors (and other perceptible qualities like smell and sound) cannot be reduced and are not fully explained by the microphysical properties of objects. Even though the position initially seems to create more problems for physicalism, it actually gives us a more intuitively acceptable picture of the world compared to the mind-body dualism we are forced to accept by the Knowledge Argument: It is a picture where there is no special problem of emergence about psychology: Emergence of qualities is everywhere in the physical world, and since it is everywhere, it is most probably a matter of our systematic failure in forming explanatory links between things that we know through experience and things that we know propositionally, rather than being a matter of an ontological gap in the world itself. Also, even if qualities cannot be reduced to micro-physical properties, they still qualify as "physical" according to a common-sensical meaning of the term, as they are, conceptually, prototypical physical properties of physical objects.