David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Diametros 7 (March):37-55 (2006)
Chalmers argues that zombies are possible and that therefore consciousness does not supervene on physical facts, which shows the falsity of materialism. The crucial step in this argument – that zombies are possible – follows from their conceivability and hence depends on assuming that conceivability implies possibility. But while Chalmers’s defense of this assumption – call it the conceivability principle – is the key part of his argument, it has not been well understood. As I see it, Chalmers’s defense of the conceivability principle comes in his response to the so-called objection from a posteriori necessity. The defense aims at showing that there is no gap between conceivability and possibility since no such gap can be generated by necessary a posteriori truths. I will argue that while Chalmers is right to the extent that there is no gap between conceivability and possibility within the standard Kripkean model of a posteriori necessity, his general conclusion is not justified. This is because the conceivability principle might be inconsistent with a posteriori necessity understood in some non-Kripkean way and Chalmers has not shown that no such alternative understanding of a posteriori necessity is available
|Keywords||Conceivability Dualism Metaphysics Necessity Possibility Chalmers, David J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jesper Kallestrup (2006). Physicalism, Conceivability and Strong Necessities. Synthese 151 (2):273-295.
Karol Polcyn (2011). The Two-Dimensional Argument Against Materialism and its Semantic Premise. Diametros 29 (29):80-92.
Anthony L. Brueckner (2001). Chalmers' Conceivability Argument for Dualism. Analysis 61 (3):187-193.
Karol Polcyn (2013). Conceivability, Possibility and Rationality. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Jacek Jarocki (2013). David Chalmers’ Argument for the Logical Possibility of Zombies. Roczniki Filozoficzne 61 (1):23-42.
Andrew Melnyk (2001). Physicalism Unfalsified: Chalmers' Inconclusive Argument for Dualism. In Carl Gillett & Barry M. Loewer (eds.), Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge University Press 331-349.
Andrew Botterell (2001). Conceiving What is Not There. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (8):21-42.
Don A. Merrell (2001). Contemporary Conceivability Arguments in the Philosophy of Mind: A Critique. Dissertation, University of Arkansas
Luca Malatesti (2013). Zombies, the Uniformity of Nature, and Contingent Physicalism: A Sympathetic Response to Boran Berčić. Prolegomena 12 (2):245-259.
Kristin P. Schaupp (2004). Conceiving Mind: A Critique of Descartes' Dualism and Contemporary Immaterialist Views of Consciousness. Dissertation, Marquette University
Karol Polcyn (2010). The Conceivability Argument and the Intuition of Dualism. Diametros 24:90-106.
Rebecca Roman Hanrahan (2009). Consciousness and Modal Empiricism. Philosophia 37 (2):281-306.
Katalin Balog (1999). Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem. Philosophical Review 108 (4):497-528.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2008). Access Denied to Zombies. Unpublished:1-13.
David J. Chalmers (2002). Does Conceivability Entail Possibility? In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press 145--200.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads168 ( #20,426 of 1,792,154 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #54,212 of 1,792,154 )
How can I increase my downloads?