Philosophical Studies

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 231–247 | Cite as

Swamp Mary’s revenge: deviant phenomenal knowledge and physicalism

Article

Abstract

Deviant phenomenal knowledge is knowing what it’s like to have experiences of, e.g., red without actually having had experiences of red. Such a knower is a deviant. Some physicalists have argued and some anti-physicalists have denied that the possibility of deviants undermines anti-physicalism and the Knowledge Argument. The current paper presents new arguments defending the deviant-based attacks on anti-physicalism. Central to my arguments are considerations concerning the psychosemantic underpinnings of deviant phenomenal knowledge. I argue that physicalists are in a superior position to account for the conditions in virtue of which states of deviants constitute representations of phenomenal facts.

Keywords

Phenomenal knowledge Physicalism Knowledge argument Psychosemantics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For especially useful comments on earlier versions and precursors, I thank Torin Alter, David Chalmers, Josh Weisberg, and an anonymous reviewer. I’m also grateful for discussions with Patricia Churchland, Paul Churchland, Paula Droege, Brian Fiala, Ellen Fridland, Chris Gauker, Uriah Kriegel, Eric Schwitzgebel, John Martin, Tom Polger, William Robinson, William Seager, Ben Young, and audiences of presentations at the University of Cincinnati Philosophy Colloquium on the Churchlands and the 2008 meeting of Toward a Science of Consciousness in Tucson, Arizona.

References

  1. Alter, T. (1998). A limited defense of the knowledge argument. Philosophical Studies, 90, 35–56. doi: 10.1023/A:1004290020847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter, T. (2008). Phenomenal knowledge without experience. In E. Wright (Ed.), The case for qualia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel, W. (in press). The epistemology of evidence in cognitive neuroscience. In R. Skipper Jr., C. Allen, R. A. Ankeny, C. F. Craver, L. Darden, G. Mikkelson, & R. Richardson (eds.), Philosophy and the life sciences: A reader. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beisecker, D. (2005). Phenomenal consciousness, sense impressions, and the logic of ‘what it’s like. Consciousness and Emotion, 137–153.Google Scholar
  5. Block, N. (1986). Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. In P. French, T. Uehling, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy, Vol. 10, studies in the philosophy of mind (pp. 615–678). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (2003a). Consciousness and its place in nature. In S. Stich & F. Warfield (Eds.), Blackwell guide to philosophy of mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. (2003b). The content and epistemology of phenomenal belief. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New philosophical essays (pp. 220–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cummins, R. (1996). Representations, targets, and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. (1987). Knowing one’s own mind. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (Vol. 60). pp. 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. (2007). What RoboMary knows. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 15–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gertler, B. (2001). Introspecting phenomenal states. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 305–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00105.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136. doi: 10.2307/2960077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mandik, P. (2009, in preparation). The neurophilosophy of subjectivity. In J. Bickle (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mandik, P., & Weisberg, J. (2008). Type-Q materialism. In C. B. Wrenn (Ed.), Naturalism, reference and ontology: Essays in honor of Roger F. Gibson. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Google Scholar
  18. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papineau, D. (2007). Phenomenal and perceptual concepts. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, XIV(4), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schwitzgebel, E. (2008). The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review, 117, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and meaning. Mind, LXII(247), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watson, R. (1995). Representational ideas: From Plato to Patricia Churchland. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.William Paterson UniversityWayneUSA

Personalised recommendations