The problem of evil arises from the argument that the existence of suffering is incompatible with (or else renders improbable) the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God (and that, since the former surely exists, the latter must not). Philosophers working on the problem, however, rarely make profitable use of the distinction between mental and physical suffering. Accordingly, in this thesis I develop a version of the problem that focuses specifically on the phenomenal experience of physical pain. After providing (in the first chapter) a detailed analysis of (i) both logical and evidential (or probabilistic) formulations of the problem, and (ii) the usefulness of this logical/evidential distinction, I discuss some of the most promising theistic responses to the problem, and conclude that these theistic responses fail. In the second chapter I lay out my argument, and I attempt to show that there is no plausible way for the theist to respond when the problem is formulated in this manner. I conclude the chapter by arguing that my argument demonstrates the incompatibility of theism with both epiphenomenalism and zombies-informed dualism. In the third chapter I begin with a discussion of mental supervenience in order to defend a commonsense modal intuition necessary for the success of my argument. I then proceed to address possible objections, including most notably the effort to cast doubt on the reliability of the inference from conceivability to possibility. Finally, I consider empirical findings that substantiate my argument's most contentious premise. / Master of Arts

Assertions about metaphysical modality (hereafter modality) play central roles in philosophical theorizing. For example, when philosophers propose hypothetical counterexamples, they often are making a claim to the effect that some state of affairs is possible. Getting the epistemology of modality right is thus important. Debates have been preoccupied with assessing whether imaginability—or conceivability, insofar as it's different—is a guide to possibility, or whether it is rather intuitions of possibility—and modal intuitions more generally—that are evidence for possibility (modal) claims. The dissertation argues that the imagination plays a subtler role than the first view recognizes, and a more central one than the second view does. In particular, it defends an epistemology of metaphysical modality on which someone can acquire modal knowledge in virtue of having performed certain complex imaginative exercises.

In contemporary philosophy of mind, the issue of consciousness has taken center stage. Broadly speaking, those who deal with consciousness fall into two camps: those who prioritize empirical work and those who favor conceptual investigation. One prominent argument has served to deepen the divide: the argument for the possibility of zombies. In this paper I intend to examine closely this argument, as it’s presented by David Chalmers, and some of the attempts to discredit it. In so doing, I present some of my own arguments against it, as well as the claim that if it’s sound, then materialism is false. Finally, I present a sketch of a new way of thinking about consciousness that would, I argue, guard against the threat—real or merely apparent—of arguments such as the zombie-argument.

A number of recent objections to physicalism are based on the apparent gap between physical knowledge and phenomenal knowledge. In response, some physicalists accept the epistemic gap, but deny the inference from the epistemic gap to a metaphysical gap. One popular strategy is to argue that there is something unique about our phenomenal concepts, the concepts that we use to think about our phenomenal states in terms of their subjective character, that explains the apparent gap. I develop a version of this strategy.Specifically, I argue that phenomenal-physical identities are necessarily true. These identities only seem contingent due to peculiarities of our phenomenal concepts. Phenomenal concepts have a unique connection to their referents; they are "self-presenting" concepts, which include their referents as components of the concepts themselves. Regardless of how we conceptualize the world, a phenomenal concept will always refer to the phenomenal state. But this is not true of non-phenomenal concepts, even concepts like `H2O' that seem to get at the essence of their referents. There is always an element of contingency in the connection between a non-phenomenal concept and its referent.When we consider an identity between a phenomenal concept and a non-phenomenal concept, like `pain = the firing of p-neurons', the more intimate connection between the phenomenal concept and its referent generates the intuition that the two concepts could come apart. This is true in a sense. If we were to adopt conceptualize things differently, the physical concept might not refer to the same state. For example, if we were to adopt a different theory of neuroscience, we might not conceptualize the firing of p-neurons as `the firing of p-neurons'. Phenomenal concepts, on the other hand, will always pick out the same referents, regardless of how we represent the world. For this reason, the concepts `pain' and `the firing of p-neurons' do come apart, but not in a sense that makes trouble for physicalism. What is possible is not a world in which pain isn't identical to the firing of p-neurons, but only a world in which pain isn't conceptualized as the firing of p-neurons.

This thesis presents and evaluates David Chalmers argument that the existence of phenomenal conscious experience constitutes a permanent barrier to the reductive aspirations of a purely materialistic neuroscience. My aim is to defend the possibility of a reductive explanation of consciousness, and argue that continued research in neuroscience and neurophysiology can result in a successful materialistic or reductive solution to the hard problem of consciousness. My argument against Chalmers is two-fold. First, I challenge Chalmers claim that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical. And second, I argue that his conceivability argument is implausible.

This thesis presents and evaluates David Chalmers argument that the existence of phenomenal conscious experience constitutes a permanent barrier to the reductive aspirations of a purely materialistic neuroscience. My aim is to defend the possibility of a reductive explanation of consciousness, and argue that continued research in neuroscience and neurophysiology can result in a successful materialistic or reductive solution to the hard problem of consciousness. My argument against Chalmers is two-fold. First, I challenge Chalmers claim that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical. And second, I argue that his conceivability argument is implausible.

Hur har vi kunskap om vad som är möjligt? Enligt vad som kan betraktas som det traditionella svaret till den frågan, har vi kunskap om modalitet via föreställningsbarhet. Vi föreställer oss ting och tar sedan detta som bevis för möjlighet. Denna uppsats kommer att undersöka tre invändningar till detta svar angående hur vi har kunskap om möjlighet. Vi kommer sedan att överväga Williamsons förmodan: att vår kognitiva kapacitet för att hantera kontrafaktiska konditionaler bär med sig den kognitiva kapaciteten för oss att även hantera metafysisk modalitet (2007, 136), och undersöka om denna förmodan undviker dessa invändningar. Det kommer här att argumenteras att Williamson’s förmodan undviker två av invändningarna och att den inte tycks kunna svara på den sista invändningen. Det kommer även att argumenteras att en invändning mot Williamson’s förmodan ser ut att vara särskilt problematisk, och att det inte är klart att Williamson’s förmodan är i någon bättre position än den negativa föreställningsbarhets vyn. / How do we have knowledge of what is possible? On what could be considered as the traditional response to this question, we have knowledge of modality by conceivability. We conceive of things and on the basis take this as evidence for possibility. This thesis will consider three objections to this response of how we have knowledge of possibility. We will then consider Williamson’s conjecture: that our cognitive capacity to handle counterfactual conditionals carries the cognitive capacity for us to also handle metaphysical modality (2007, 136), and see if this conjecture avoids these objections. It will be argued that Williamson’s conjecture avoids two of the objections and that it does not seem to have a response to the last objection. It will also be argued that one objection to Williamson’s conjecture seems particularly problematic, and that it is not so clear that Williamson’s conjecture is any better off than the negative conceivability view.

Les arguments de concevabilité sont des arguments philosophiques reposant sur le principe selon lequel tout ce qui est concevable est possible. Cette thèse se propose d'évaluer à un niveau général cette forme d'argumentation en s'appuyant sur des exemples historiques et contemporains. les arguments de concevabilité, quelle que soit la position philosophique qu'ils visent à défendre, soulèvent en effet des difficultés qui leur sont communes et ont trait principalement (i) à la définition de la notion de possibilitée, (ii) à la définition de la notion de concevabilité, et (iii) à la légitimité de l'inférence allant de l'une à l'autre. Le travail consiste d'abord (chapitres 1-3) à construire la catégorie que constituent les arguments de concevabilité en spécifiant notamment le genre de thèses philosophiques qu'ils peuvent chercher à établir. Une fois précisés les objectifs que les arguments de concevabilité peuvent viser, il s'engage (chapitres 4-8) dans l'examen de savoir si les ressources fournies par Ia concevabilité et l'inférence menant du concevable vers le possible suffisent à les atteindre. Pour ce faire, le travail propose une analyse détaillée des différentes formes de possibilité (chapitres 4-5) et de concevabilité (chapitres 6-8) impliquées dans ces arguments. II aboutit à une position dite sceptique modérée au sujet de la validité de cette forme d'argumentation, sur la base de la démonstration que, pour les thèses philosophiques qui nécessitent l'etablissement d'une possibilité métaphysique, la concevabilitée s'avère être un guide insuffisamment fiable, quelle que soit la manière dont on comprend la concevabilité. Mais il défend aussi l'idée que le fait que les arguments de concevabilité ne soient pas toujours concluants n'implique pas qu'ils sont depourvus d'utilité argumentative: car ils nous obligent à clarifier les implications modales de nos conceptions philosophiques et la manière dont nous pouvons raisonner au sujet de ces implications. Cette conception des arguments de concevabilité est appliquée pour finir à la clarification d'un chapitre essentiel de la philosophie de la cognition contemporaine relatif à la possibilité de fournir une explication naturaliste (physicaliste) de la conscience phénoménale, et ou un argument de concevabilité qui a fait couler beaucoup d'encre, dit argument des zombis, joue un rôle essentiel. / Conceivability arguments are philosophical arguments which rely crucially on the principle according to which conceivability entails possibility. This dissertation provides an analysis and a critical assessment of this kind of argumentative strategy, on the basis of contemporary and historical examples. Various possible explanations of the notion of conceivability are considered and it is argued that the inference from conceivability to possibility does not enable conceivability arguments to reach all their intended conclusions, especially those pertaining to substantial metaphysical issues.

Jakub Mihálik: Consciousness in Nature. A Russellian Approach Abstract: This thesis attempts to provide a philosophical answer to the question of how phenomenal consciousness, or experience, can exist in the physical world, i.e. in the world as it is described by science. The thesis has three parts: In the first part (chapter 1) I explicate the concept of phenomenal consciousness and contrast it with other concepts of consciousness common in the literature. Moreover, I suggest that the project pursued in this thesis can be naturally viewed as a part of the more general project of trying to find a stereoscopic view of man, taken by Wilfrid Sellars to be a crucial task for contemporary philosophy. In the second part of the thesis (chapters 2 to 4) I offer a detailed evaluation of the attempts at a materialist reduction of consciousness. While in chapter 2 I explore and critique the approach of apriori physicalism (Dennett, Lewis, Rey, etc.), in chapters 3 and 4, I focus on the more recent doctrine of a posteriori physicalism and especially its most prominent variety called the phenomenal concept strategy (Loar, Papineau, Levin, Schroer, etc.). One problem with a posteriori physicalism is that, as Nida-Rümelin, Goff and others argue, the view cannot make sense of the plausible thesis that our phenomenal...

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird aufgrund der kommentierten Quellen die Tatsache erhellt, dass der Kantsche Anspruch auf Legitimität des Erkenntnisverfahrens, wie er in seiner Transzendentalphilosophie zum Ausdruck gebracht wurde, von drei Momenten des Gedankenprozesses in der Philosophie der Deutschen Aufklärung vorangekündigt wird: a) der Verschiebung der Problematik der deutschen Philosophie vom „Harmonie“-Gedanken der so genannten Leibniz-Wolff-Schule und ihrer Gegner hin zur Fragestellung nach der „Realisierung der Begriffe“ bei Tetens, in der sich der Mensch als sinnstiftendes Wesen dartut, b) dem bereits bei Thomasius in Sprachparallelen zu Kant auftretenden „empiriorationalistischen“ Moment, das die gesamte Periode des Kampfes um die Wolffsche Lehre begleitet und bei Lambert eine neue Form (a priori durch Erfahrung) bekommt, c) dem Verständnis der Denkbarkeit bzw. Begreifbarkeit als Mitteilbarkeit, das schon in der Frühaufklärung (von Thomasius implizit, von Tschirnhaus explizit) anzutreffen ist und von den Zeitgenossen Kants rehabilitiert und von Tetens als Frage nach der Intersubjektivität (das „Objectivische“ als das „unveränderlich Subjectivische“) betont wird. Mit den Werken von Lambert und Tetens, in denen Gott fast keine Rolle mehr spielt, emanzipiert sich das philosophische Denken endgültig von der religiösen Furcht und dem „metaphysischen Schauder“, die während der Barockzeit durch den Triumph der wissenschaftlichen Revolution hervorgebracht worden waren. In der Philosophie der beiden Zeitgenossen Kants versteht sich der Mensch nicht mehr als „intellectus ectypus“, sondern zum ersten Mal als potentieller Gesetzgeber der Natur. Folglich macht diese Tatsache klar, dass Kant auf bereits gestellte Fragen zu antworten hatte. / The current dissertation, which is based on documented sources, elucidates the fact that the Kantian claim of the legitimacy of the cognitive process, as this claim is expressed in the Kantian “Transcendental Philosophy”, had its precursor in three major elements of the philosophical evolution in the German Enlightenment: a)The shifting of the philosophical problematic in the German Enlightenmentfrom the “harmony”-thinking of the Wolffians and their detractors, to Tetens’ posit of the “realization” of concepts, according to which a human being is proven as a meaning-establishing entity; b) The “empiriorationalistic” element in Thomasius, which finds parallels in Kantian formulations, remains active during the whole controversy surrounding the Wolffian teaching, and then acquires a new form in Lambert (a priori through experience); c) The understanding of “conceivability” as “communicability”, which is already present in the early German Enlightenment, implicitly in Thomasius and explicitly in Tschirnhaus, does not come under discussion in the era of Wolff. However, this element comes under the spotlight by Kant’s contemporaries, especially highlighted in Tetens’ question of intersubjectivity (the objective as the “unchangeably subjective”). The representatives of German Enlightenment Philosophy after 1760 freed from the metaphysical shudder caused by the “scientific revolution”, are the very first to comprehend the human intellect, not as “intellectus ectypus”, but as the legislator of nature. In this way, German philosophical thought is to abandon once and for all the baroque world-view. The systems of Lambert and Tetens show clearly that Kant elaborated on questions that they had already posed in an elementary form.