Zhuo-Ran Deng - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Zhuo-Ran Deng
In this dissertation I offer my objections to three famous arguments concerning the mindbody prob... more In this dissertation I offer my objections to three famous arguments concerning the mindbody problem. The first argument is Saul Kripke's (1980) modal argument against psychophysical identity theory. Kripke argues that if pain is identical to C-fibre firing then this identity must be necessary. However he points out that the identity is, if true, also a posteriori, and he argues that this alleged a posteriori identity cannot be accounted for in the way that scientific a posteriori identities are accounted for. He concludes on this basis that pain cannot be identical to C-fibre firing, and, more generally, that alleged psychophysical identities are false. The second argument is David Chalmers' (1996) 'zombie' argument against materialism. Chalmers argues that zombies are conceivable, that the conceivability of zombies entails the possibility of zombies, and that the possibility of zombies is inconsistent with the truth of materialism. He concludes that materialism is ...
The Philosophical Quarterly, 2016
Famous examples of conceivability arguments include: (i) Descartes' argument for mind-body dualis... more Famous examples of conceivability arguments include: (i) Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism; (ii) Kripke's 'modal argument' against psychophysical identity theory; (iii) Chalmers' 'zombie argument' against materialism; and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding 'mirror argument', M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C's conclusion. Hence a proponent of C-henceforth, a 'conceivabilist'-can be warranted in holding that C's premises are conjointly true only if she can find fault with one of M's premises. But M's premises-of which there are just two-are modeled on a pair of C's premises. The same reasoning that supports the latter supports the former. For this reason a conceivabilist can repudiate M's premises only on pain of severely undermining C's premises. We conclude on this basis that all conceivability arguments, including each of (i)-(iv), are fallacious.
In this dissertation I offer my objections to three famous arguments concerning the mindbody prob... more In this dissertation I offer my objections to three famous arguments concerning the mindbody problem. The first argument is Saul Kripke's (1980) modal argument against psychophysical identity theory. Kripke argues that if pain is identical to C-fibre firing then this identity must be necessary. However he points out that the identity is, if true, also a posteriori, and he argues that this alleged a posteriori identity cannot be accounted for in the way that scientific a posteriori identities are accounted for. He concludes on this basis that pain cannot be identical to C-fibre firing, and, more generally, that alleged psychophysical identities are false. The second argument is David Chalmers' (1996) 'zombie' argument against materialism. Chalmers argues that zombies are conceivable, that the conceivability of zombies entails the possibility of zombies, and that the possibility of zombies is inconsistent with the truth of materialism. He concludes that materialism is ...
The Philosophical Quarterly, 2016
Famous examples of conceivability arguments include: (i) Descartes' argument for mind-body dualis... more Famous examples of conceivability arguments include: (i) Descartes' argument for mind-body dualism; (ii) Kripke's 'modal argument' against psychophysical identity theory; (iii) Chalmers' 'zombie argument' against materialism; and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding 'mirror argument', M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C's conclusion. Hence a proponent of C-henceforth, a 'conceivabilist'-can be warranted in holding that C's premises are conjointly true only if she can find fault with one of M's premises. But M's premises-of which there are just two-are modeled on a pair of C's premises. The same reasoning that supports the latter supports the former. For this reason a conceivabilist can repudiate M's premises only on pain of severely undermining C's premises. We conclude on this basis that all conceivability arguments, including each of (i)-(iv), are fallacious.