Epistemic Gaps and the Mind-Body Problem

Dissertation, Cornell University (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This dissertation defends materialism from the epistemic arguments against materialism. Materialism is the view that everything is ultimately physical. The epistemic arguments against materialism claim that there is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths (for example, that knowing the physical truths does not put you in a position to know the phenomenal truths), and conclude from this that there is a corresponding gap in the world between physical and phenomenal truths, and materialism is false. Chapter 1 introduces materialism and the arguments against materialism that I respond to in this dissertation. Chapters 2 and 3 explore the phenomenal concept strategy (PCS), one promising materialist response to the epistemic arguments against materialism. The PCS admits that there is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths, but claims that it arises because of something special about our concepts of consciousness and not because of something special about consciousness itself. Chapter 4 considers what reason there is to think that there is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal truths in the first place. I argue that some arguments might succeed in showing that there is such an epistemic gap, but that if these arguments succeed then they end up vindicating the PCS. Chapter 5 considers more generally what is required for an epistemic gap to exist. In particular, it considers whether conceptual analysis is necessary to close an epistemic gap.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Defending the phenomenal concept strategy.E. Diaz-Leon - 2008 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):597 – 610.
Phenomenal States.Brian Loar - 2017 - In Katalin Balog & Stephanie Beardman, Consciousness and Meaning: Selected Essays by Brian Loar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pp. 195-219.
In Defense of the Phenomenal Concept Strategy.Katalin Balog - 2011 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (1):1-23.
Dissolving type‐b physicalism.Helen Yetter-Chappell - 2017 - Philosophical Perspectives 31 (1):469-498.
Are there brute facts about consciousness?Torin Alter - 2018 - In Elly Vintiadis & Constantinos Mekios, Brute Facts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 130-154.
How to Explain the Explanatory Gap.Neil Mehta - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (2):117-135.
Grounding, Analysis, and Russellian Monism.Philip Goff - 2019 - In Sam Coleman, The Knowledge Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 198-222.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-08-17

Downloads
2,201 (#12,800)

6 months
418 (#11,939)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Thomas Foerster
Cornell University (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Facing up to the problem of consciousness.David Chalmers - 1995 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (3):200-19.
What do philosophers believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (4):435-50.
Does conceivability entail possibility.David J. Chalmers - 2002 - In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne, Conceivability and Possibility. New York: Oxford University Press UK. pp. 145--200.
Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong.Jerry A. Fodor - 1998 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.

View all 61 references / Add more references