Using the results of the latest neurophysiological research on colour, the article rejects outright physicalism and dispositionalism as appropriate approaches to solving the problem of colour realism. Physicalism sees colour as a real property of objects, i.e. the reflectance profile, while dispositionalism takes subjects, objects and light as necessary elements for colour production. First, it briefly outlines the historical development of the theory of colour, pointing towards dispositionalism which, in some sense, considers colour as a real entity of the world, (...) and then introduces the problem of colour realism, focusing on objections to physicalism as well as dispositionalism. After delineating the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the visual experience of colour, and with the help of the concrete results of practical neurophysiological experiments, the article points to why the physicalist and any dispositionalist theories of colour in the light of a new physiological objection do not present credible views on the nature of colour. (shrink)

In his recent paper on the meta-problem of consciousness, Chalmers :6–66, 2018) claims that illusionism is one of the best reductionist theories available and that it is not incoherent, even if it is implausible and empirically false. Our paper argues against this: strong illusionism is poorly established. The first part presents the reasoning leading to strong illusionism; i.e., it describes the initial conditions and relations among them for its establishment. The second part of the paper argues that strong illusionism is (...) not constructed in a satisfactory way and calls the flaw in establishing it the pre-illusion problem. The third part demonstrates that the existing defense of strong illusionism does not save it from the pre-illusion problem, while the fourth part of the paper outlines two strategies to fight the pre-illusion problem, concluding, however, that they fail to do so, and indicates one possible way in which illusionism might be, nevertheless, coherently established. (shrink)

Es liegt auf der Hand, warum das antireduktionistische Bild der mentalen Verursachung, die mentale Phänomene für kausal wirkungsvoll hält, so attraktiv ist: Es bewahrt die einmalige Natur des Mentalen , während es gleichzeitig dem Mentalen in unserer Welt seinen Platz zu sichern sucht, was mit der physikalistischen Ideologie kompatibel ist. Doch Kims so genanntes Supervenienzargument erinnert an das Dilemma, dem wir begegnen, wenn wir antireduktionistischen Lösungen der mentalen Verursachung den Vorzug geben, was uns dazu zwingen kann, diese aufzugeben, um nach (...) anderen, plausibleren zu suchen. Das Problem liegt nämlich im Folgenden: Entweder besitzen mentale Eigenschaften kausale Fähigkeiten, oder sie besitzen sie nicht. Wenn sie sie besitzen, dann verstoßen wir gegen das Kausalprinzip der Schlussfolgerung, was eine Negation des Physikalismus bedeutet. Wenn nicht, dann akzeptieren wir den Epiphänomenalismus, der kausale mentale Fähigkeiten jedweder Art negiert. Somit geben wir entweder den Physikalismus auf oder wir akzeptieren den Epiphänomenalismus. Da der Antireduktionismus in beiden Fällen verliert, bildet keine dieser Optionen eine echte Alternative für seine Proponenten. Aus diesem Grunde glauben einige Autoren, dass wir uns an den Reduktionismus halten sollten, um mentale Kausalitäten zufriedenstellend erklären zu können. Gleichwohl ist hierbei der traditionelle, von Nagel geprägte Reduktionismus nicht angebracht, ein anderes ausgeklügeltes Modell sollte auf den Plan treten. Der erste Teil des Artikels stellt Gründe für die Abkehr von der klassischen Reduktion vor, der zweite beschreibt Kims funktionales Modell der Reduktion als eines seiner möglichen Nachfolger, während der Schlussteil den Ursachen seines Scheiterns auf den Grund geht. (shrink)

Il est évident pourquoi l`image antiréductionniste de la causalité mentale, selon laquelle les phénomènes mentaux sont considérés comme des causes efficientes est si attirante : elle préserve la nature unique du mental , tout en essayant d`assurer la place pour le mental dans notre monde, ce qui est compatible à l`idéologie physicaliste . Mais le soi disant argument de Kim provenant de la survenance nous rappelle le dilemme auquel nous devons faire face lorsque nous favorisons les solutions antiréductionnistes de la (...) causalité mentale, qui pourraient nous forcer à les abandonner et en chercher d`autres plus plausibles. La difficulté est la suivante: les propriétés mentales ont des pouvoirs causals ou non. Si elles en ont, nous violons alors le principe de la conclusion causale, ce qui est la négation du physicalisme. Si ce n`est pas le cas, nous acceptons l`épiphénoménalisme qui conteste les pouvoirs mentaux causals de toutes sortes. Ainsi, soit on renonce au physicalisme, soit on accepte l`épiphénoménalisme. Puisque, dans les deux cas, l`antiréductionnisme est perdant, aucune des deux options ne présente une vraie alternative pour ses tenants. Pour cette raison-là certains auteurs pensent que nous devons nous adresser au réductionnisme afin d`expliquer la causalité mentale d`une manière plus satisfaisante. Pourtant, ce n`est pas le modèle traditionnel de réduction de Nagel qui est ici en jeu, mais il s`agit plutôt d`autres modèles plus sophistiqués. La première partie de cet article présente les raisons pour que soit abandonnée la réduction classique, la deuxième décrit le modèle fonctionnel de réduction de Kim, qui en est un successeur potentiel, alors que la fin traite les raisons de son échec. (shrink)

Neurophysiological research suggests our mental life is related to the cellular processes of particular nerves. In the spirit of Occam’s razor, some authors take these connections as reductions of psychological terms and kinds to molecular- biological mechanisms and patterns. Bickle’s ‘intervene cellularly/molecularly and track behaviourally’ reduction is one example of this. Here the mental is being reduced to the physical in two steps. The first is, through genetically altered mammals, to causally alter activity of particular nerve cells, i.e. neurons, at (...) the molecular level and then, under controlled experimental conditions, to use generally-accepted rules of behaviour within psychology to monitor the results of these manipulations. In this article, we argue that Bickle’s case example for molecular reduction, i.e. the reduction of long-term memory to its cellular-molecular mechanisms, cannot support his claims, because it turns out that his chosen molecular pathway is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for the memory consolidation switch, and thus, instead of rejecting the multiple realization argument, Bickle’s argument actually speaks in favour of it. Therefore the idea of reductive connections between our mental life and the activity of particular nerves is, at present, still more fiction than reality. (shrink)

The article critically examines Jaegwon Kim’s book Physicalism, or Something Near Enough (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). It recognizes the »near enough type of physicalism« involving functional reduction and covering the relational properties of qualia. Its intrinsic qualites are left out, but since it is qualia’s differences and similarities that matter, i.e. which affect our cognition and behaviour, this is, according to Kim, “no big loss”. While appreciating the book’s effort to offer an intelligible physicalistic theory of the world, the (...) paper concludes that it fails to do so. (shrink)

It is obvious why the antireductionist picture of mental causation, which considers mental phenomena to be causally efficacious, is so attractive: it preserves the unique nature of the mental , while at the same time it tries to secure a place for the mental in our world which is compatible with a physicalist ideology . But Kim’s so called argument from supervenience reminds us of the dilemma that we face while favouring antireductionist solutions of mental causation which might force us (...) to abandon them and look for some other more plausible ones. The trouble is, namely, the following: either mental properties have causal powers or not. If they have them then we violate the causal closure principle which means a denial of physicalism. If not, then we embrace epiphenomenalism, which denies the mental causal powers of any sort. So, either we give up physicalism or accept epiphenomenalism. Since antireductionism loses both ways neither of these options represents a true alternative for its proponents. For this reason some authors think that we should look at reductionism in order to explain mental causation in a more satisfactory manner. However, it is not the traditional Nagel model of reduction that is in play here, but some rather more sophisticated ones. The first part of the article presents the reasons for dropping classical reduction, the second part describes Kim’s functional model of reduction as one of its possible successors, and the final part of the article discusses the reasons for its failure. (shrink)

It is quite obvious why the antireductionist picture of mental causation that rests on supervenience is an attractive theory. On the one hand, it secures uniqueness of the mental; on the other hand, it tries to place the mental in our world in a way that is compatible with the physicalist view. However, Kim reminds us that anti-reductionists face the following dilemma: either mental properties have causal powers or they do not. If they have them, we risk a violation of (...) the causal closure of the physical domain; if they do not have them, we embrace epiphenomenalism, which denies any sort of causal powers to the mental. So, either we violate the causal closure of physics, or we end up with epiphenomenalism. The first two sections of the article describe the problem of causal exclusion and Kim’s causal dilemma. The last two introduce Horgan’s antireductionist answer and my objection to that answer. (shrink)

The anti-reductionist who wants to preserve the causal efficacy of mental phenomena faces several problems in regard to mental causation, i.e. mental events which cause other events, arising from her desire to accept the ontological primacy of the physical and at the same time save the special character of the mental. Psychology tries to persuade us of the former, appealing thereby to the results of experiments carried out in neurology; the latter is, however, deeply rooted in our everyday actions and (...) beliefs and despite the constant opposition of science still very much alive. Difficulties, however, arise from a combination of two claims that are widely accepted in philosophy of mind, namely, physical monism and mental realism, the acceptance of which leads us to the greatest problem of mental causation: the problem of causal exclusion. Since physical causes alone are always sufficient for physical effects mental properties are excluded from causal explanations of our behaviour, which makes them “epiphenomenal”. The article introduces Van Gulick’s solution to the exclusion problem which tries to prove that physical properties, in contrast to mental properties, do not have as much of a privileged status with respect to event causation as usually ascribed. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that physical properties are causally relevant whereas mental properties are not. This is followed by my objection to his argument for levelling mental and physical properties with respect to causation of events. I try to show that Van Gulick’s argument rests on a premise that no serious physicalist can accept. (shrink)