Spelling suggestions: "subject:"russell"" "subject:"russell's""
1 |
Russellian Monism and Mental CausationJanuary 2018 (has links)
abstract: Russellian monism is a promising theory of consciousness that attempts to capture the strengths of both physicalism and dualism while avoiding their weaknesses. I begin by showing that the Russellian monist’s chief anti-physicalist rival, emergentism, is unable to give an adequate solution to the exclusion problem. Specifically, they fall prey to what I call “the opacity problem.” That is, because the emergentist is committed to there being both a sufficient physical cause and a sufficient mental cause for our actions, it is unclear what difference the mental cause is making in bringing about the effect. This is because, for the physical cause to truly be a sufficient cause, it must be sufficient to bring about the effect as it occurred. This distinguishes mental overdetermination from non-problematic kinds of overdetermination (like double rock throwing cases). I then show how the constitutive Russellian monist is able to avoid the exclusion problem, while the emergent Russellian monist faces similar opacity problems to emergentism. Finally, I give an account of how the constitutive Russellian monist can give a response to the strongest objection against—the subject-summing problem. I argue that we only have translucent access to our conscious states—that is, only part of the essential nature of the state is revealed to us through introspection. I then argue that we have reason to think that part of the essential nature of the conscious state not revealed to us is involved in subject-summing. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Philosophy 2018
|
2 |
Identity Panpsychism and the Causal Exclusion Problem / Identitets-panpsykism och det kausala exklusionsproblemetGahan, Emma January 2024 (has links)
Russellian panpsychism is often regarded as a theory of mind that bears promise of integrating conscious experience into the physical causal order. In a recent article by Howell, this is questioned. I will argue that failure to address Howell´s challenge properly has deeper consequences than it might initially appear; epiphenomenal micro-qualia means that we have lost a unique opportunity to gain insight into necessities in nature. In order to make use of this opportunity, however, some initial assumptions commonly made must be dropped: most crucially, the assumption of mind-body distinctness. In what follows, I try to provide a sketch of how a slightly different version of Russellian panpsychism can be formulated that builds around identity instead of mind-body distinctness. This version of panpsychism can meet Howell's challenge, but what is more, it can be met in a way that fully makes use of the special place occupied by panpsychism regarding the mysterious nature of the “necessary connection” between cause and effect.
|
3 |
Quatre réponses au problème de la combinaison pour le monisme russellienTremblay-Baillargeon, Victor 08 1900 (has links)
Le « problème difficile de la conscience » consiste à comprendre pourquoi certains processus physiques, comme ceux ayant lieu dans le cerveau humain, donnent lieu à de la conscience, c’est-à-dire à de l’expérience subjective. Ce mémoire se penche sur une théorie cherchant à répondre au problème difficile de la conscience : le monisme russellien. Cette théorie affirme en bref que la conscience est la nature intrinsèque de la matière. Le monisme russellien espère pouvoir expliquer l’existence de la conscience humaine en posant la conscience au niveau fondamental de la réalité. Toutefois, des critiques affirment que cette théorie est incapable d’expliquer comment la conscience présente dans la matière pourrait se combiner pour former la conscience humaine. Une telle objection se nomme le « problème de la combinaison ». Après une présentation du monisme russellien et du problème du la combinaison, la plausibilité de quatre différentes réponses au problème de la combinaison sera évaluée. Ces quatre réponses tâchent de rendre intelligible la manière dont la conscience présente dans la matière pourrait se combiner pour constituer la conscience humaine. / The "hard problem of consciousness" is the problem of understanding why certain physical processes, such as those taking place in the human brain, give rise to consciousness, or subjective experience. This thesis examines a theory that seeks to answer the hard problem of consciousness: Russellian monism. In short, this theory asserts that consciousness is the intrinsic nature of matter. Russellian monism hopes to explain the existence of human consciousness by positing consciousness at the fundamental level of reality. However, critics claim that this theory is unable to explain how consciousness present in matter could combine to form human consciousness. Such an objection is called the "problem of combination". After a presentation of Russellian monism and the combination problem, I critically evaluate the plausibility of four different answers to the combination problem. These four different answers try to make intelligible the way in which consciousness present in matter could combine to constitute human consciousness.
|
4 |
Vědomí v přírodě. Russellovský přístup / Consciousness in Nature. A Russellian ApproachMihálik, Jakub January 2016 (has links)
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...
|
Page generated in 0.0493 seconds