Physicalism without pop-out
In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. Mit Press (2009)
| Abstract | Imagine a very fi ne grid or graph on which dots are placed at various coordinates so that, as a consequence, this or that shape materializes there. Depending on the coordinates of the dots, different shapes will appear, and for every shape there will be a pattern in the coordinates that guarantees its appearance. Take, for example, the diagonal line that slopes rightward and upward at an angle of 45 degrees from the origin. This line is bound to make an appearance so long as the coordinates satisfy the condition or pattern that as they move away from the origin, (0,0), the coordinates are progressively larger pairs of equal numbers: (1,1), (3,3), and so on. In the world of such dots and shapes, it is going to be in principle possible, for any array of dots that realizes a relevant shape, to derive the presence of the shape from the numerical coordinates of the dots. More particularly, it is going to be possible to derive that shape without reliance on anything other than, fi rst, the empirical fact that the given array of coordinates instantiates this or that pattern; and second, the a priori knowable fact that the pattern guarantees the presence of the shape in question. The nature of the shapes on any grid—if indeed there are any relevant shapes present—is going to be a priori derivable from the positions of the dots; it is going to be possible in principle to derive the one from the other. The simplest and most appealing version of physicalism parallels this sort of doctrine about dots and shapes (Pettit 1994, 1995). It holds that just as the positions of the dots determine the nature of the shapes a priori, so the way the natural world is physically organized a priori determines the way it presents itself in psychological and other terms. The way things are physically confi gured entails the presence of psychological and other realities, and it does this without reliance on anything other than what a.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,882 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesW. J. Holly (1986). The Spatial Coordinates of Pain. Philosophical Quarterly 36 (July):343-356.
John Kulvicki (2005). Perceptual Content, Information, and the Primary/Secondary Quality Distinction. Philosophical Studies 122 (2):103-131.
Kevin Connolly (2011). Does Perception Outstrip Our Concepts in Fineness of Grain? Ratio 24 (3):243-258.
D. Gene Witmer (2006). How to Be a (Sort of) A Priori Physicalist. Philosophical Studies 131 (1):185-225.
Manish Singh & Barbara Landau (1998). Parts of Visual Shape as Primitives for Categorization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):36-37.
Bradford Skow (2007). Are Shapes Intrinsic? Philosophical Studies 133 (1):111 - 130.
Paul Pietroski, Jeffrey Lidz, Tim Hunter & Justin Halberda (2009). The Meaning of 'Most': Semantics, Numerosity and Psychology. Mind and Language 24 (5):554-585.
Shimon Edelman (1998). Representation is Representation of Similarities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):449-467.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1996). Shape Properties and Perception. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads9 ( #115,524 of 556,909 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
