Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2007. / Title from file title page. Andrea Scarantino, Eddy Nahmias, committee co-chairs; Sebastian Rand, committee member. Electronic text (84 p. : ill.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed Dec. 13, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 80-84).

Pei Kong-ngai. / Thesis submitted in: September 2002. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves i-vi). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter Chapter One: --- Introduction / Chapter 1. --- Intentional States and Folk Psychology --- p.1 / Chapter 2. --- "Eliminativism, Externalism, and Individualism" --- p.5 / Chapter 3. --- Overview of The Thesis --- p.8 / Chapter Chapter Two: --- Mental States and Externalism / Chapter 1. --- The Distinction between Intrinsic and Relational Properties --- p.11 / Chapter 2. --- Supervenience --- p.14 / Chapter 3. --- Externalism --- p.18 / Chapter 4. --- The Classical Arguments for Semantic Externalism: The Twin Earth Thought Experiments --- p.19 / Chapter 5. --- From Semantic Externalism to Mental Content Externalism --- p.23 / Chapter 6. --- Externalism and Physicalism --- p.26 / Chapter 7. --- The Common Concept Strategy Objection to Externalism --- p.28 / Chapter Chapter Three: --- Stich's Argument for Individualism: The Argument from Below / Chapter 1. --- Stich's Argument for Individualism --- p.34 / Chapter 2. --- Narrow and Wide Behaviour --- p.37 / Chapter 3. --- Refining the Argument --- p.39 / Chapter 4. --- Is Replacement Argument Successful in establishing Individualism? --- p.44 / Chapter 5. --- Fodor's Argument for Premise 2*: Narrow Behaviour and Crazy Causal Mechanisms --- p.46 / Chapter 6. --- Causal vs. Non-Causal (Constitutive) Causal Powers --- p.51 / Chapter 7. --- Conclusion: Stich's Unsuccessful Argument from Below --- p.53 / Chapter Chapter Four: --- Fodor's Argument for Individualism: The Argument from Abo --- p.ve / Chapter 1. --- Fodor's Explanan Argument --- p.56 / Chapter 2. --- A Response to Individualism: Rendering Intentional States Individualistic --- p.65 / Chapter 2.1 --- Fodor's Account of Narrow Content --- p.69 / Chapter 2.2 --- Criticisms of Fodor's Account of Narrow Content --- p.71 / Chapter 3. --- Examining Global Individualism: Fodor's A Priori Argument --- p.74 / Chapter 3.1 --- Counterexamples to Global Individualism --- p.76 / Chapter 3.2 --- Can Global Individualism be Reconciled with Relational Taxonomies? --- p.81 / Chapter 3.3 --- Two Senses of Causal Relevance of External Conditions --- p.83 / Chapter 3.4 --- The Failure of The Argument from Above --- p.89 / Chapter Chapter Five: --- Conclusion --- p.91 / Bibliography --- p.i / Acknowledgement --- p.vi

It is widely agreed that some concepts can be possessed only by those who have undergone a certain type of phenomenal experience. The orthodox view among contemporary philosophers of mind that these phenomenal concepts provide the key to understanding the dispute between physicalists and their opponents. I reject the orthodox view; I defend an externalist conception of mental content according to which there are no phenomenal concepts. But the fact that there are no phenomenal concepts should not worry the physicalist: there are better accounts of the data that phenomenal concepts are used to explain. / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Canterbury, 2007. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 95-97). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Carleton University, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 243-249). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Philosophy, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.

In recent years, much attention has been given to the question of whether content externalism is compatible with an account of self-knowledge maintaining that we have an epistemically privileged access to the content of our propositional mental states. Philosophers who maintain the two are incompatible (incompatibilists) have put forward two majors types of challenge, which I call - following Martin Davies - the Achievement and Consequence Problems, which aim to demonstrate that self-knowledge cannot be reconciled with externalism. These challenges have spawned a great deal of literature, and a diverse range of arguments and positions have emerged in response. In this dissertation, I intend to focus on examples of these different avenues of response, and show how none of them are adequate. In the first chapter, I lay the groundwork for the debate, setting up how externalism and self-knowledge are to be understood, and outlining both the incompatibilist challenges as well as the available responses to them. In the second chapter I examine these responses in more detail, concluding finally that the best available response is Tyler Burge's. Burge has two arguments that together establish his compatibilist position. First, he shows that even if externalism is true, our judgements about our occurrent thoughts are immunejrom error. This establishes that our judgements about our thoughts must be true. Second, he offers a transcendental argument for self-knowledge, arguing that our access to our mental states must be not only true, but non-accidentally true, in a way sufficient for genuine knowledge. This establishes that we possess the correct epistemic entitlement to our thoughts. In the third chapter, I argue Burge's arguments do not, in fact, give us good reason to suppose externalism and self-knowledge to be compatible. This, I argue, is because B urge relies upon a transcendental argument, which, in this context, cannot establish that we have self-knowledge if externalism is true. All it establishes, I argue, is that we do possess self-knowledge. And this is insufficient to establish that externalism and self-knowledge are compatible. / KMBT_363 / Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in

This thesis engages with epistemology???s value problem. That is, is knowledge epistemically preferable to true belief? If so, how is that the case? The issue under discussion is whether epistemic justification can account for a value discrepancy between true belief and knowledge. First of all, the contours of the justificatory landscape are presented???in particular, the division between externalist and internalist styles. The thesis then considers whether solely truth-directed justification (which includes externalism) can possibly account for a value unique to knowledge. The preliminary conclusion is that solely truth-directed justification cannot solve the value problem. A discussion of internalism then ensues. The discussion does not focus explicitly on which benefits internalism may offer in terms of value; instead, the focus is on whether internalism qua internalism can solve the value problem. It is concluded that, if internalism is the sole provider of the value of knowledge (above that of true belief), then epistemology must forgo the belief that knowledge is preferable to a Gettiered belief. I do not accept such a concession; therefore, I reject the thesis that internalism exclusively solves the value problem. Throughout the thesis, the importance of externalism to epistemology becomes apparent. This feature invites a reconsideration of the value of externalism (in particular, of reliabilism). The thesis closes by reconsidering the value of reliabilism and concludes that the value problem can be solved, but only by an appeal to externalist justification.

This thesis engages with epistemology???s value problem. That is, is knowledge epistemically preferable to true belief? If so, how is that the case? The issue under discussion is whether epistemic justification can account for a value discrepancy between true belief and knowledge. First of all, the contours of the justificatory landscape are presented???in particular, the division between externalist and internalist styles. The thesis then considers whether solely truth-directed justification (which includes externalism) can possibly account for a value unique to knowledge. The preliminary conclusion is that solely truth-directed justification cannot solve the value problem. A discussion of internalism then ensues. The discussion does not focus explicitly on which benefits internalism may offer in terms of value; instead, the focus is on whether internalism qua internalism can solve the value problem. It is concluded that, if internalism is the sole provider of the value of knowledge (above that of true belief), then epistemology must forgo the belief that knowledge is preferable to a Gettiered belief. I do not accept such a concession; therefore, I reject the thesis that internalism exclusively solves the value problem. Throughout the thesis, the importance of externalism to epistemology becomes apparent. This feature invites a reconsideration of the value of externalism (in particular, of reliabilism). The thesis closes by reconsidering the value of reliabilism and concludes that the value problem can be solved, but only by an appeal to externalist justification.