Philosophical Perspectives 15 (s15):393-413 (2001)
|Abstract||The conceivability argument (CA) against physicalism1 starts from the prem- ises that: (1) It is conceivable that I have a zombie-twin, i.e., that there is someone who is physically identical to me and yet who lacks phenomenal con- sciousness; and (2) If it is conceivable that I have a zombie-twin, then it is possible that I have a zombie-twin. These premises entail that physicalism is false, for physicalism is the claim—or can be assumed for our purposes to be the claim2—that|
|Keywords||Conceivability Concept Metaphysics Modality Physicalism|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Keith Frankish (2007). The Anti-Zombie Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):650–666.
Peter Kail (2003). Conceivability and Modality in Hume: A Lemma in an Argument in Defense of Skeptical Realism. Hume Studies 29 (1):43--61.
Jesper Kallestrup (2006). Physicalism, Conceivability and Strong Necessities. Synthese 151 (2):273-295.
Stephen Law (2004). Loar's Defence of Physicalism. Ratio 17 (1):60-67.
Sara Worley (2003). Conceivability, Possibility and Physicalism. Analysis 63 (1):15-23.
Katalin Balog (1999). Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem. Philosophical Review 108 (4):497-528.
Daniel Stoljar (2007). Two Conceivability Arguments Compared. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt1):27-44.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads104 ( #5,893 of 556,802 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #8,460 of 556,802 )
How can I increase my downloads?