In this thesis I explore and defend physicalism—the view that there is ‘nothing over and above’ the physical. Part of the challenge for physicalists is to make this slogan precise. They should provide a plausible account of the relation that everything must stand in to the physical in order for nothing to be ‘over and above’ it, as well as a reasonable characterization of ‘the physical’ itself. I elaborate and defend a common physicalist understanding of the ‘nothing over and above’ relation in terms of ‘global metaphysical supervenience,’ and introduce a novel strategy for characterizing the physical that sidesteps the most powerful objection to a ‘future physics’ definition of the physical—what Jessica Wilson (2006) has dubbed ‘the inappropriate extension worry.’ I then explore and respond to David Chalmers’ (1996) ‘zombie argument’ against physicalism, and Ned Block’s (2007) ‘overflow’ argument against the physicalist view of consciousness which I favour.

The following dissertation is an examination of arguments against physicalism. Physicalism is a thesis in the philosophy of mind that is constituted by two central claims: (1) the ontological claim that everything that exists is ontologically physical and that human beings are among such things; (2) the explanatory claim that all facts about human beings and all explanations of their behaviour are dependent on and determined by physical facts and explanations. It has frequently been asserted that there are properties that escape capture in physicalist accounts of human behaviour, thereby undermining (2). Such properties are usually thought to be lacking causal powers, and hence have been called "epiphenomenal." The epiphenomenalist objections have long been thought to represent a serious obstacle to physicalism. My aim is to show that the objections that are motivated by epiphenomena} properties are unconvincing. My discussion proceeds in two stages. In the first stage I examine the epiphenomenalist objections in detail and show that in their most persuasive forms they demonstrate that physicalism has certain explanatory inadequacies. The critics of physicalism believe that these shortcomings lead to the denial of the explanatory completeness of physicalism, and I try to make their case as charitably as I can. In the second stage of the argument I invoke the relation of psycho-physical supervenience and show that the desired conclusion does not follow, even if we admit that physicalism has certain explanatory failings. The overall conclusion ofthis dissertation is that the epiphenomenalist objections to physicalism are completely undermined and hence that properties which were thought to be epiphenomena! do not represent a serious obstacle to physicalisrn as was previously thought. My intention is that this discussion push forward work in the philosophy of mind and point the way to a more adequate articulation of physicalism. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Thesis advisor: Ronald Tacelli / Thesis advisor: Micah Lott / Physicalism has a problem: experience must derive from wholly physical things, but how can physical matter produce experience? An answer to this question may require a drastic change in the physicalist paradigm. Some propose Panpsychism as the best available response. Panpsychism contends that all physical matter has mental properties. To many such a notion is a sheer absurdity. Two mainstream responses may be more tolerable: Reductionism and Emergentism. Panpsychism is defensible only if these alternate approaches fail. This project lays out the logic of the panpsychist arguments against reductionism and emergentism, as well as stating an overall case for physicalist panpsychism. The apparent absurdity of panpsychism will be found trivial in comparison with the remaining difficulties for more traditional physicalist approaches. Panpsychism should therefore be considered a viable option on the mind-body problem. Despite outstanding difficulties with the view, it has considerable theoretical value and cannot be merely considered an absurd position. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2015. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Arts and Sciences Honors Program. / Discipline: Philosophy.

I defend physicalism about phenomenal consciousness against recent epistemic arguments for dualism. First I argue (as against Kripke) that psychophysical identities can be a posteriori (and apparently contingent, and conceivably false). Their epistemic status is due to the analytic independence of phenomenal and physical-functional terms. Unlike Kripke's own explanation of a posteriori necessity, analytic independence is consistent with - indeed explained by - the direct reference of phenomenal terms, so Kripke's argument against psychophysical identities fails. I then argue (as against White and Chalmers) that direct reference does not itself make identities a priori. Next I endorse the 'a priori entailment thesis': if physicalism is true, phenomenal truths follow a priori from a complete statement of the facts of physics. I argue that physicalists must accept a priori entailment if we are to avoid brute or 'strong' a posteriori necessities. I show that a priori entailment is consistent with analytic independence, and so make room for what Chalmers calls 'type-C' physicalism. Jackson's 'Mary', who knows all the physical facts, would be able to deduce the physical-functional reference of phenomenal terms, and so the truth of psychophysical identities, without appealing to analytic connections. The 'knowledge' argument for dualism therefore fails. The lack of such connections does, however, help explain why Mary's deduction seems intuitively impossible. A priori entailment makes zombie scenarios inconceivable, so Chalmers's 'conceivability' argument fails. It also closes Levine's 'explanatory gap' between physical and phenomenal truths. Though it may not satisfy all demands for explanation, any remainder poses no threat to physicalism. I then defend type-C physicalism against some recent objections to the 'phenomenal-concept strategy'. I close by observing that while the view I defend can rebut epistemic arguments for dualism, it leaves the question of whether consciousness has a physical basis as a matter for empirical investigation.

No description available.

Submitted by Juciane Terezinha do Prado null (jucianepradowb@hotmail.com) on 2018-03-30T14:01:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Juciane.pdf: 769073 bytes, checksum: 13717d8c6b064a72684c453f7046260d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Satie Tagara (satie@marilia.unesp.br) on 2018-04-02T14:34:46Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 prado_jt_me_mar.pdf: 769073 bytes, checksum: 13717d8c6b064a72684c453f7046260d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-02T14:34:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 prado_jt_me_mar.pdf: 769073 bytes, checksum: 13717d8c6b064a72684c453f7046260d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-03 / Não recebi financiamento / Nesta Dissertação, abordamos a proposta do monismo dual (ou de duplo aspecto), sugerida por Thomas Nagel, para analisar os aspectos do mental como a consciência e os qualia. O estudo propõe analisar em que medida essas características mentais podem ser descritas de forma física, ou se, ao efetuar uma análise minunciosa dessas características, podemos concluir que elas não podem ser descritas da mesma forma que descrevemos eventos físicos. Para que possamos, então, as analisar, descrevemos, inicialmente, a abordagem dualista e em que medida ela contribui para nossa compreensão das características mentais como eventos não físicos. Analisamos, também seus problemas e dificuldades em se explicar a interação de processos mentais não físicos com o corpo físico. Em seguida, abordamos a concepção fisicalista, na qual, propomos descrever seus problemas e as razões pelas quais as características mentais não podem ser, simplesmente, explicadas ou mesmo descritas como processos físicos ordinários. No capítulo seguinte, descrevemos a perspectiva de Nagel, sobre a proposta do monismo de duplo aspecto, no qual o autor propõe duas perspectivas epistemológicas sobre a mente consciente, as perspectivas de primeira pessoa, restrita ao próprio ser consciente, e a perspectiva de terceira pessoa, correspondendo ao modo de abordagem típico das ciências empíricas. Nesta abordagem, as qualidades subjetivas (qualia) se restringem à perspectiva de primeira pessoa. Portanto, o monismo de duplo aspecto em Nagel pode ser caracterizado como sendo ontologicamente monista (trata-se de um só ser consciente) e epistemologicamente dualista (este ser é apreendido por si mesmo na perspectiva de primeira pessoa, e abordado cientificamente na perspectiva da terceira pessoa). / We approach the proposal of dual-aspect monism by Thomas Nagel to analyze the conscious mind and related concepts as qualia. To what extent these mental characteristics can be described in a physical way, or, by performing a thorough analysis of these characteristics, should we conclude that they cannot be described in the same way that we describe physical events? We first describe the dualistic approach and to what extent it contributes to our understanding of the mental characteristics as non-physical events. We also analyze the problems and difficulties in explaining the interaction of non-physical mental processes with the physical body. Then we approach the physicalist conception and propose to describe its problems and the reasons why the mental characteristics cannot be simply explained or even described as ordinary physical processes. In the following chapter, we describe Nagel's perspective on the proposition of dual-aspect monism, in which the author proposes two epistemological perspectives on the conscious mind, the first person perspective, restricted to the conscious being itself, and the third person perspective, corresponding to the typical approach of the empirical sciences. In his view, subjective qualities (qualia) are restricted to the first-person perspective. Therefore, dual-aspect monism in Nagel can be characterized as being ontologically monistic (we are one being, body and mind) and epistemologically dualistic (this being is apprehended by herself in the first-person perspective, and approached scientifically from the third person perspective).

<p>This work aims to shed new light on Augustine of Hippo’s mature dualistic view of the world, the master argument he advanced in support of it, and how it was different from the competing physicalist model that was both prevalent during his time and of which he had earlier been a proponent. Specifically, it aims to understand these topics in light of Augustine’s position on the relation of <i>nonphysical</i> (or <i>incorporeal</i>) objects to space. This topic has yet to be extensively discussed and the secondary claims one finds regarding the matter differ: for some authors claim that Augustine did take nonphysical objects to be located in space and others claim that he did not. I hold that part of the reason for the lack of consensus on this topic is the reliance by each group of authors on limited and distinct sets of direct quotations from Augustine’s writings. In contrast to previous treatments, I approach Augustine’s position by way of his account of <i>spatial location</i> and his account of <i>incorporeal</i> objects. On these grounds, in addition to a more comprehensive set of direct textual data, <i>Chapter 1</i> argues for <i>Modal~SLI</i> or the thesis that <i>pace</i> the affirmative position and <i>beyond</i> the negative one, Augustine was committed to the view that incorporeal objects generally, and God and human souls in particular, not only <i>lack</i> spatial location – they <i>cannot</i> be so located.<i> Chapter 2</i> argues from <i>Modal~SLI</i> in conjunction with further forms of evidence, against <i>spatial readings</i> of Augustine’s notion of <i>presence</i> and for a ca<i>usal account</i> (or <i>CP</i>). The causal account holds that Augustine took presence <i>per se</i> to be a kind of causal relation which does not require or entail spatially located <i>relata</i>. On the basis of <i>CP</i> and <i>Modal~SLI</i> and additional forms of evidence, <i>Chapter 3</i> argues against spatial readings and for a causal analysis of Augustine’s argument from presence to the incorporeality of human souls. <i>Chapter 4</i> argues on these same bases against the spatial reading and for a causal analysis of Augustine’s argument from omnipresence to God’s incorporeality. Additionally, <i>Chapters 3</i> and <i>4</i> contain extensive discussions of the support that Augustine’s provides for the premises in each of the arguments that is their focus. <i>Chapter 5</i>, which is the capstone of this project, draws out the implications of earlier chapters to advance new and more complete models of Augustine’s mature dualistic view of the world, the rational basis upon which he endorsed the dualistic model and rejected the competing physicalist one, and the comparative relations between his mature model and the physicalist one. Among the conclusions it advances are the following: (i) in including both physical and nonphysical objects Augustine’s mature view includes objects that are and must be located in space and objects that are not and cannot be located it space; (ii) in including God and human souls as nonphysical objects it includes them as objects that are not and cannot be located in space; (iii) causal claims (i.e., claims expressing causal relations) were central drivers of Augustine’s personal transition from a physicalist to a dualistic view of the world and were central elements of his impersonal or public case against physicalism and for dualism; and (iv) the dualist and physicalist models were similar in that each included physical objects, objects with spatial location, and God and human souls; but they differed in that unlike the physicalist model, the dualist model also included nonphysical objects, objects without spatial location, and numbered God and human souls as nonphysical objects and hence objects without spatial locations. </p> <br> <p> </p>

Revelation is (roughly) the thesis that the natures of phenomenal properties are revealed through experience. In this paper, I respond to Antonin Broi's charge that if both Revelation and the quality space view of phenomenal properties are true, then counterintuitive results that speak against the truth of Revelation obtain. I present a qualified theory of Revelation that not only prevents his arguments from succeeding but has independent plausibility as a solution to worries about the alleged epiphenomenalism of phenomenal properties. / Master of Arts / When you taste a Golden Delicious apple, drink Ethiopian coffee, feel dental pain, hear classical music or have many other conscious experiences of things, there's *something it's like* to be in those states. The taste of the apple and the coffee and the feel of dental pain are phenomenal properties - the "feels" of things in the broadest possible sense. Philosophers wonder what these things - "feels" - really are. Are they neurological features of your brain or a material features generally or are they something different? In a recent essay, Antonin Broi attacks the idea that they are something other than material or brain states. If Revelation - the idea that experiences reveal the essences of phenomenal properties - and some ideas about the general nature of phenomenal properties are both true, then strange results arise. I argue against his reasoning and I give a better way to understand Revelation.

The central aim of this thesis is to argue that the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation presents a stronger constraint on what counts as a satisfactory statement of the relation between the mental and the physical than can be acknowledged within the metaphysical framework of non-reductive physicalism. Although the chief merit of non-reductive physicalism appears to be its ability to respect the irreducibility of mental concepts to physical concepts, whilst respecting the primacy of the physical ontology, I claim that its commitment to the principles of physicalism prevents that framework from being able to accommodate what I will refer to as the deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation. The deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation manifests itself in the fact that the work carried out by mentalistic explanations is completely separate from the work carried out by physicalistic explanations. I claim that the deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation cannot be recognised within a metaphysical framework which claims to recognise the primacy of the physical ontology because recopsing deep autonomy requires giving up the assumption that the mental must be related to the physical in the manner appropriate to discharging such metaphysical principles. I defend the claim that we can recognise the deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation if we take our successful explanatory practices as the starting point of our investigation, and only then revert to the question of how best to articulate the relation between the mental and the physical. My claim is that there is an intrinsic connection between the nature of the mental and the nature of human relationships, and I therefore suggest that the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation ought to be understood in connection with the autonomous nature of human relationships. The basic ideas in this thesis are derived by combining features of Wittgenstein’s rule following considerations with features of John MacMurray’s approach to human relationships. On the basis of this combination, I argue for the more specific claim that there is an intrinsic connection between what it means to say that an individual has the capacity to think and what it means to say that he has the capacity to be involved in various types of human relationships. This connection is then used to develop a non-causal account of human action to challenge the physicalist ’s causal account, which will be used to support the claim that mentalistic explanations are autonomous with respect to physicalistic explanations in the deeper sense. I conclude by arguing that the considerations which put us in position to recognise the deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation ought to constrain our statement of the relation between the mental and the physical, and I suggest that this statement should be consistent with the way in which mentalistic and physicalistic explanations carry out their work in our explanatory practices. I claim that individuals are subject to mentalistic explanations in so far as they have a life to live in the world with other people, and that individuals are subject to physicalistic explanations in so far as human beings are creatures whose life has a natural biological dimension. But rather than identifying the mental with the physical, and thereby compromise the deeper extent of the autonomous nature of mentalistic explanation, I suggest that this relation might be understood in terms of the fact that the mental is embedded in the dimension of human life which is constituted by the involvement of individuals in various types of relationshps with each other, and that the dimension of human life in which physicalistic explanations are operative is presupposed as the causal background which must be in place if individuals are to have such a life to live in the world.

There is a widespread intuition that physicalist theories of consciousness are importantly incomplete. But the psychological facts give us reason to think that the gap-intuition does not justify the belief that physical theories of consciousness always leave out some facts about consciousness. I target this belief, and aim to establish that it is not epistemically justified by the gap-intuition. I begin by making a case for thinking that a purely psychological analysis of the "explanatory gap" is not only a viable one, but is in many ways preferable to the standard modal-epistemological analysis. Then I marshal a body of empirical findings in support of the view that various sub-personal psychological processes play a key role in producing the gap-intuition. The most crucial of these processes is the agent-detector, a cognitive system specifically dedicated to detecting other conscious agents in the third-person mode. Leveraging this account, I argue that while the relevant sub-personal processes are generally accurate, in the case of the gap-intuition they are "tricked" in a manner analogous to a visual blind spot or a bias in decision-making. Thus gap-intuitions are not trustworthy and do not confer justification upon belief in a "real" gap. I conclude by situating my account within the context of existing literature on the explanatory gap. My account naturally complements various physicalist accounts of the gap, and also deserves consideration as an outright replacement for such accounts. The overall lesson is that the gap-intuition would arise whether or not physicalist theories of consciousness really do leave something out, and would persist even if we came to accept a true physicalist theory of consciousness. Thus anti-physicalist arguments that are based on the gap-intuition pose no serious threat to physicalist theories of consciousness.