Scrutiny of the Two-Dimensional Argument against Physicalism

Q3 Arts and Humanities Principia Pub Date : 2023-10-06 DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e88067
Wilson Mendonça, Julia Telles de Menezes
{"title":"Scrutiny of the Two-Dimensional Argument against Physicalism","authors":"Wilson Mendonça, Julia Telles de Menezes","doi":"10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e88067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chalmers’s two-dimensional argument against materialism (aka the zombie argument) is arguably the most ingenious attempt to ground a view about fundamental reality on epistemic considerations. From the conceivability of a being that is physically identical to a conscious being but that is deprived of phenomenal consciousness (a zombie), the argument draws on the interplay of the primary and the second intensions of the zombie hypothesis to infer the metaphysical possibility of a zombie world, and thus the falsity of physicalism about phenomenality. By means of a detailed reconstruction of the two-dimensional argument, the paper tries to isolate its most central assumption: that the role played by an epistemic scenario (an intentional object) in the verification of the zombie hypothesis is played by a nonintentionally individuated metaphysical world (the zombie world) considered as actual. The paper argues that no non-viciously circular case for this assumption has been made. Thus, the two-dimensional argument is at best inconclusive.","PeriodicalId":38561,"journal":{"name":"Principia","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Principia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e88067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Chalmers’s two-dimensional argument against materialism (aka the zombie argument) is arguably the most ingenious attempt to ground a view about fundamental reality on epistemic considerations. From the conceivability of a being that is physically identical to a conscious being but that is deprived of phenomenal consciousness (a zombie), the argument draws on the interplay of the primary and the second intensions of the zombie hypothesis to infer the metaphysical possibility of a zombie world, and thus the falsity of physicalism about phenomenality. By means of a detailed reconstruction of the two-dimensional argument, the paper tries to isolate its most central assumption: that the role played by an epistemic scenario (an intentional object) in the verification of the zombie hypothesis is played by a nonintentionally individuated metaphysical world (the zombie world) considered as actual. The paper argues that no non-viciously circular case for this assumption has been made. Thus, the two-dimensional argument is at best inconclusive.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对反对物理主义的二维论证的审视
查尔默斯反对唯物主义的二维论证(又名僵尸论证)可以说是将关于基本现实的观点建立在认识论考虑之上的最巧妙的尝试。从一个在物理上与有意识的存在相同但被剥夺了现象意识(僵尸)的存在的可想象性出发,该论点利用僵尸假设的第一和第二意图的相互作用来推断僵尸世界的形而上学可能性,从而推断出物理主义关于现象性的虚假性。通过对二维论证的详细重构,本文试图分离出其最核心的假设:在僵尸假说的验证中,认知情景(有意对象)所起的作用是由一个被认为是真实的、非有意个体化的形而上学世界(僵尸世界)所起的作用。本文认为,对于这一假设,没有任何非恶性循环的情况。因此,二维的论证充其量是不确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Principia
Principia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Williamson sobre a vaguidade, o princípio da margem de erro e o princípio KK A negação do número 2 em Grundgesetze e § 46 de Grundlagen: Resposta a N.N. Pons Asinorum para a Lógica Proposicional Clássica Limitaciones de la complejidad en las Ciencias Ómicas: simplificación epistemológica en el abordaje de enfermedades Una Concepción Enactiva de Cultura: Enculturación como Acople Dinámico entre Seres Humanos y sus Entornos de Cultura Material
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1