意识、启示和困惑

Q2 Arts and Humanities DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2022-11-18 DOI:10.48106/dial.v74.i1.04
L. Roelofs
{"title":"意识、启示和困惑","authors":"L. Roelofs","doi":"10.48106/dial.v74.i1.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critics have charged constitutive panpsychism with inconsistency.Panpsychists reject physicalism for its seeming inability to explainconsciousness. In making this argument, they commit themselves tothe idea of \"revelation\": that we know, in some especially direct way,the nature of consciousness. Yet they then attribute properties to ourconsciousness---like being constituted out of trillions of simplerexperiential parts---that conflict with how it seems introspectively.This seems to pose a dilemma: either revelation is false, andphysicalism remains intact, or revelation is true, and constitutivepanpsychists are hoist by their own petard. But this is too simplistic.Constitutive panpsychists can say that our minds contain innumerablephenomenal states that are \"confused\" with one another: immediatelypresent to introspection only en masse, not individually. Acceptingrevelation does not require ignoring the attentional, conceptual, andinterpretive limitations of introspection, and these familiarlimitations remove the tension between panpsychism and relevation.","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consciousness, Revelation, and Confusion\",\"authors\":\"L. Roelofs\",\"doi\":\"10.48106/dial.v74.i1.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Critics have charged constitutive panpsychism with inconsistency.Panpsychists reject physicalism for its seeming inability to explainconsciousness. In making this argument, they commit themselves tothe idea of \\\"revelation\\\": that we know, in some especially direct way,the nature of consciousness. Yet they then attribute properties to ourconsciousness---like being constituted out of trillions of simplerexperiential parts---that conflict with how it seems introspectively.This seems to pose a dilemma: either revelation is false, andphysicalism remains intact, or revelation is true, and constitutivepanpsychists are hoist by their own petard. But this is too simplistic.Constitutive panpsychists can say that our minds contain innumerablephenomenal states that are \\\"confused\\\" with one another: immediatelypresent to introspection only en masse, not individually. Acceptingrevelation does not require ignoring the attentional, conceptual, andinterpretive limitations of introspection, and these familiarlimitations remove the tension between panpsychism and relevation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v74.i1.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48106/dial.v74.i1.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

批评者指责构成泛心论自相矛盾。泛心论者拒绝物理主义,因为它似乎无法解释意识。在提出这一论点时,他们致力于“启示”的概念:即我们以某种特别直接的方式知道意识的本质。然而,他们随后将一些属性归因于我们的意识——比如由数万亿个更简单的经验部分组成——这与我们的内省方式相冲突。这似乎造成了一个两难境地:要么启示是错误的,物理主义保持完整,要么启示是正确的,构成泛心论者自食其果。但这太简单化了。本构泛心论者可以说,我们的头脑中包含着无数的现象状态,这些状态彼此“混淆”:只是整体地、而不是单独地呈现给内省。接受启示并不需要忽略内省的注意力、概念和解释限制,这些熟悉的限制消除了泛心论和关联之间的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Consciousness, Revelation, and Confusion
Critics have charged constitutive panpsychism with inconsistency.Panpsychists reject physicalism for its seeming inability to explainconsciousness. In making this argument, they commit themselves tothe idea of "revelation": that we know, in some especially direct way,the nature of consciousness. Yet they then attribute properties to ourconsciousness---like being constituted out of trillions of simplerexperiential parts---that conflict with how it seems introspectively.This seems to pose a dilemma: either revelation is false, andphysicalism remains intact, or revelation is true, and constitutivepanpsychists are hoist by their own petard. But this is too simplistic.Constitutive panpsychists can say that our minds contain innumerablephenomenal states that are "confused" with one another: immediatelypresent to introspection only en masse, not individually. Acceptingrevelation does not require ignoring the attentional, conceptual, andinterpretive limitations of introspection, and these familiarlimitations remove the tension between panpsychism and relevation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
期刊最新文献
Biosafety Considerations for Viral Vector Gene Therapy: An Explanation and Guide for the Average Everyday-Hero Pharmacist. Robinson's Regress Argument from Vagueness to Dualism David Armstrong on the Metaphysics of Mathematics Are There Occurrent Continuants? Review of Willaschek (2018)
×
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