著者
佐金 武
出版者
京都大学哲学論叢刊行会
雑誌
哲学論叢 (ISSN:0914143X)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.33, pp.67-78, 2006

"David Chalmers claims that the nature of consciousness as a subjective quality constitutes an independent subject area and that its existence cannot be reduced to anything else. In particular, reductive explanations to physical theories as well as functionalism about mental states are hopeless for this purpose (perhaps they assume the existence of the conscious mind, in that failing to explain what we seek to understand about its very nature). His argument for mind-body dualism, which is supposed to sustain the claim above, proceeds as follows: 1) what is conceivable is possible; 2) There is at least one conceivable world where one’s physical duplicate has no consciousness, which is called a zombie-world; therefore, 3) the zombie-world is possible; 4) if it is possible, then physicalism or materialism is false; therefore, 5) physicalism is false. The central concern of this essay is to critically examine Premises 1) and 2). Concerning Premise 1), which I shall call the “Conceivability-Possibility Thesis,” some precedent arguments based on similar theses can be found throughout the history of western philosophy (e.g. the Cartesian argument for mind-body dualism and Hume’s denial of the reality of causality), and many contemporary philosophers discuss their validity and force (e.g. van Cleve, 1983 & Yablo, 1993). It should be noted, however, that Chalmers uniquely defends the thesis, as seen in his developed theory known as “epistemic two-dimensionalism,” and I shall begin with its survey (Section 2 and 3). Through this examination, it will be realized that 1) and 2) are not independent premises, and that 1) can never be established as a general rule applicable to all cases until conceivability of the zombie-world is shown to be a priori. I shall argue that no such a priori reasoning for non-existence of consciousness is incomplete (Section 4). (Note also that if this is correct, the zombie case, pace Chalmers, will fall under the “twilight zone” in his terminology and even be in danger of becoming a counter-example to his Conceivability-Possibility Thesis. It therefore should be admitted either that conceivability of the unconscious mind is incomplete, or that the thesis that is expected to encompass something that is merely, or only allegedly conceivable, cannot be maintained. In effect, the zombie argument will turn out to be undone. Following this, responses to six possible objections will be set forth (Section 5)."
著者
佐金 武
出版者
The Philosophy of Science Society, Japan
雑誌
科学哲学 (ISSN:02893428)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.42, no.1, pp.1_15-1_28, 2009 (Released:2009-09-30)
参考文献数
12

The central thesis to presentism is that only the present exists; what is past no longer exists and future does not exist yet. One problem with this position is how to explicate the asymmetry of time. In ordinary talk, we say that the past is fixed whereas the future is still open. How can we cash out such metaphors? The answer, however, will not automatically follow from presentism itself because past and future are said to be ontologically on par, both being nonexistent. In this essay, I first introduce a theory of presentism, which I call Tensed-Property Presentism, and show how it can explicate the asymmetry of time.
著者
佐金 武
出版者
The Philosophy of Science Society, Japan
雑誌
科学哲学 (ISSN:02893428)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.44, no.1, pp.1_59-1_74, 2011 (Released:2011-10-13)
参考文献数
18

In his book Metaphysics of Temporal Modality, Prof. Isashiki takes a very unique and intriguing approach to philosophy of time. He begins with raising the following three questions. (i) What does it mean to say that the past is determinate or fixed whereas the future is open? (ii) Why is it impossible to see temporal transition from the present to the past? (iii) Does the present have no duration? Answering to those questions, he declares that he does not assume any linear representation of time. In this review, I shall examine to what extent the attempt succeeds and in what respects it fails.
著者
佐金 武
出版者
京都大学哲学論叢刊行会
雑誌
哲学論叢 (ISSN:0914143X)
巻号頁・発行日
no.33, pp.67-78, 2006

"David Chalmers claims that the nature of consciousness as a subjective quality constitutes an independent subject area and that its existence cannot be reduced to anything else. In particular, reductive explanations to physical theories as well as functionalism about mental states are hopeless for this purpose (perhaps they assume the existence of the conscious mind, in that failing to explain what we seek to understand about its very nature). His argument for mind-body dualism, which is supposed to sustain the claim above, proceeds as follows: 1) what is conceivable is possible; 2) There is at least one conceivable world where one's physical duplicate has no consciousness, which is called a zombie-world; therefore, 3) the zombie-world is possible; 4) if it is possible, then physicalism or materialism is false; therefore, 5) physicalism is false. The central concern of this essay is to critically examine Premises 1) and 2). Concerning Premise 1), which I shall call the "Conceivability-Possibility Thesis," some precedent arguments based on similar theses can be found throughout the history of western philosophy (e.g. the Cartesian argument for mind-body dualism and Hume's denial of the reality of causality), and many contemporary philosophers discuss their validity and force (e.g. van Cleve, 1983 & Yablo, 1993). It should be noted, however, that Chalmers uniquely defends the thesis, as seen in his developed theory known as "epistemic two-dimensionalism," and I shall begin with its survey (Section 2 and 3). Through this examination, it will be realized that 1) and 2) are not independent premises, and that 1) can never be established as a general rule applicable to all cases until conceivability of the zombie-world is shown to be a priori. I shall argue that no such a priori reasoning for non-existence of consciousness is incomplete (Section 4). (Note also that if this is correct, the zombie case, pace Chalmers, will fall under the "twilight zone" in his terminology and even be in danger of becoming a counter-example to his Conceivability-Possibility Thesis. It therefore should be admitted either that conceivability of the unconscious mind is incomplete, or that the thesis that is expected to encompass something that is merely, or only allegedly conceivable, cannot be maintained. In effect, the zombie argument will turn out to be undone. Following this, responses to six possible objections will be set forth (Section 5)."
著者
太田 紘史 佐金 武
出版者
科学基礎論学会
雑誌
科学基礎論研究 (ISSN:00227668)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.39, no.1, pp.1-11, 2011-11-25

Temporality is an essential part of our conscious experience. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a conscious individual who does not know what it's like to "experience time." For instance, we know what it's like to see bubbles in a glass rising up to the surface, to hear music playing, and even to feel time passing. In this paper, we first clarify three temporal characteristics of conscious experience: change, duration, and direction. Next, we criticize a memory-based account of those characteristics and suggest a representationalist account as an alternative approach. We also consider some objections to the representationalist account raised by B. Dainton, and try to reply to them. Finally, we give an outline of a systematic representationalist theory of all the three temporal characteristics.