Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Institute
Philosophy is essentially dialectical. One gets into a dialectic by a puzzle, an aporia in thought and understanding. The point of philosophizing is not (necessarily) to get hold of the ultimate, objective, and immutably correct answers. The point is rather to come to be able to see one’s way out of the aporia, and to understand how one got into it in the first place.
The essay that follows – which I am submitting as my dissertation – is dialectical in two senses. As a piece of philosophizing, the essay is guided by a problem, the problem of understanding how laws of nature are possible, and how it is possible for us to know them. The movement of thought generated by attempts to get out of the problem then yields some ideas that do not stay in the original context in which the problem was felt to exist. Two important ones are, first, perceptual experience is not the only ultimate source of warrant we have for empirical knowledge claims, and second, perceptual experience is not the only epistemically significant experience we can have. Both are consequences of the idea that the mastery of skills is a form of interaction with nature that provides epistemic warrant for nomological claims. I shall leave it to the epilogue to examine how this view of skills contrasts with the ways skills are ordinarily thought of in philosophy and the implication of it for empiricism.
The other sense in which the essay is dialectical is more interesting, and it has to do with the way in which I approach the problem that got me into started, namely, by paying special attention to the dialectic exchange between the realists and the antirealists about the laws of nature. Antirealism about the lawfulness of nature has experienced something like a post-Humean revival since the publication of van Fraassen’s The Scientific Image. Most, including me, have strong realist intuitions about nomological “connections” in nature. Philosophical positions that are strongly counterintuitive have mostly not ended well in history. So it becomes something of a puzzle why antirealism about laws of nature manages to enjoy popularity every now and then.
The central aim of this dissertation is the defense of the metaphysical thesis of Physicalism against two anti-physicalist arguments, namely, the conceivability arguments and the knowledge argument. Both arguments confront Physicalism with apparently incompatible facts about consciousness, in particular, the so-called subjective character of consciousness. Both arguments depart from epistemic premisses to arrive at metaphysical conclusion that physicalism is false. This step will be justified through an inferential connection between conceivability and metaphysical possibility. The hypothesis is that the set of physicalist responses known as the Phenomenal Concept Strategy is the most promising way to respond to the anti-physicalist arguments. In this dissertation I have critically assed the so-called Phenomenal Concept Strategy and I have defended it from new formulated objections.
This thesis develops a naturalist theory of phenomenal consciousness. In a first step, it is argued on phenomenological grounds that consciousness is a representational state and that explaining consciousness requires a study of the brain’s representational capacities. In a second step, Bayesian cognitive science and predictive processing are introduced as the most promising attempts to understand mental representation to date. Finally, in a third step, the thesis argues that the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” can be resolved if one adopts a form of metaphysical anti-realism that can be motivated in terms of core principles of Bayesian cognitive science.
