Journals / Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

A Defense of the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism

Fizikselcilik Karşıtı Bilgi Argümanının Bir Savunusu

Pages
653–695
Publication Date
2021-09-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

My aim here is not to prove that the knowledge argument is sound, but to show that none of the objections are strong enough and that it can still be reasonable to believe that the knowledge argument is sound and physicalism is false.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:According to Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument, the fact that the subjective knowledge of conscious mental states cannot be reduced to the objective knowledge of brain states shows us that conscious mental states are not physical states.
📊
Key Findings & Data:There are many rejoinders to this argument in contemporary philosophy of mind.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:My aim here is not to prove that the knowledge argument is sound, but to show that none of the objections are strong enough and that it can still be reasonable to believe that the knowledge argument is sound and physicalism is false.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilgi Argümanı · Fizikselcilik · Görüngüsel Bilgi

Abstract

According to Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument, the fact that the subjective knowledge of conscious mental states cannot be reduced to the objective knowledge of brain states shows us that conscious mental states are not physical states. There are many rejoinders to this argument in contemporary philosophy of mind. In this article, after laying down the claims and assumptions that the knowledge argument rests on, I defend the argument against each major objection in the literature. My aim here is not to prove that the knowledge argument is sound, but to show that none of the objections are strong enough and that it can still be reasonable to believe that the knowledge argument is sound and physicalism is false.

Özet

Frank Jackson’ın bilgi argümanı, bilinçli zihin durumlarımızın birinci kişi gözünden elde edilen öznel bilgisinin beyin durumlarının nesnel bilgisine indirgenemeyeceği iddiasından bilinçli zihin durumlarının fiziksel olmadığı sonucuna varır. Günümüz zihin felsefesi literatüründe bu argümana yöneltilen birçok itiraz bulunabilir. Bu çalışmada, bilgi argümanının içerdiği iddia ve varsayımları ortaya koyduktan sonra, argümanın her adımına getirilen başlıca itirazları ayrı ayrı ele alıyor ve bilgi argümanını bu itirazlar karşısında savunuyorum. Buradaki amacım, argümanın sağlamlığını kanıtlamak değil, fakat Jackson’a yöneltilen itirazların sorunlarını ve zayıf yönlerini ortaya koyarak bilgi argümanının sağlamlığına ve dolayısıyla fizikselciliğin yanlış olduğuna inanmanın hala makul bir felsefi pozisyon olduğunu göstermek.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIYMAZ, T. (2021). A Defense of the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism. Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 653–695. https://ajindex.com/articles/397057

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Alter, T. (1998). A Limited Defense of the Knowledge Argument. Philosophical Studies, 90 (1), 35–56.
  2. Alter, T. (2008). Phenomenal Knowledge without Experience. The Case for Qualia (ed. Edmond Wright). MIT Press.
  3. Alter, T. (2013). Social Externalism and the Knowledge Argument. Mind, 122 (486). Arıcı, M. (2020). The Source of Anti-Physicalist Arguments: The Unbridgeable Gap between the Phenomenal and the Physical. MetaZihin: Yapay Zeka ve Zihin Felsefesi Dergisi, 3 (2), 99-119.
  4. Ball, D. (2009). There Are No Phenomenal Concepts. Mind, 118 (472): 935-962.
  5. Balog, K. (2012a). In Defense of the Phenomenal Concept Strategy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84 (1), 1-23.
  6. Balog, K. (2012b). Acquaintance and the Mind-Body Problem. New Perspectives on Type Identity: The Mental and the Physical. (ed. S. Gozzano & C. S. Hill, pp. 16-43).
  7. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bealer, G. (1994). Mental Properties. The Journal of Philosophy, 91 (4), 185-208.
  9. Broad, C. D. (1925). The Mind and its Place in Nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Burge, T. (1979). Individualism and the Mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4 (1), 73-122.
  10. Burge, T. (1986). Intellectual Norms and the Foundations of Mind. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 697–720.
  11. Byrne, A. (2002). Something about Mary. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 62, 123-140.
  12. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Chalmers, D. J. (2004). Phenomenal Concepts and the Knowledge Argument. There's Something About Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument (ed. P. Ludlow, D. Stoljar & Y. Nagasawa). MIT Press.
  14. Chalmers, D. J. (2007). Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap. Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism (ed. T. Alter and S. Walter, pp. 167-194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Chalmers, D. J. & F. Jackson (2001). Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation. Philosophical Review, 110, 315–60.
  16. Churchland, P. M. (1985).
  17. Reduction, Qualia and The Direct Introspection of Brain States. Journal of Philosophy, 82 (January), 8-28.
  18. Conee, E. (1994). Phenomenal Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72 (2), 136-50.
  19. Crane, T. (2003). Subjective Facts. Real Metaphysics: Essays in Honour of D. H. Mellor (ed. H. Lillehammmer & G. Rodrigez-Pereyra, pp. 68-83). New York: Routledge. Çağatay, H. & C. Ekemen (2011). Mary’nin Odası ve Fizikalizm. Felsefe Tartışmaları, 47, 26-33.
  20. Demircioğlu, E. (2013). Physi