Philosophical Studies

, Volume 163, Issue 1, pp 251–269 | Cite as

Pleading ignorance in response to experiential primitivism

  • Raamy MajeedEmail author


Modal arguments like the Knowledge Argument, the Conceivability Argument and the Inverted Spectrum Argument could be used to argue for experiential primitivism; the view that experiential truths aren’t entailed from nonexperiential truths. A way to resist these arguments is to follow Stoljar (Ignorance and imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006) and plead ignorance of a type of experience-relevant nonexperiential truth. If we are ignorant of such a truth, we can’t imagine or conceive of the various sorts of scenarios that are required to make these arguments sound. While I am sympathetic to this response, in this article I will argue that we have good reason to believe that this particular ignorance hypothesis is false.


Ignorance hypothesis Qualia Zombies Conceivability Consciousness Panpsychism Ramseyan humility Epistemic gap Physicalism 


  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A materialist theory of mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, S. (1990). Filling in space. Analysis, 50, 60–65.Google Scholar
  3. Broad, C. D. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. (2002). Consciousness and its place in nature. In D. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 247–272). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The managua lectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Churchland, P. (1985). Reduction, qualia, and the direct introspection of brain states. Journal of Philosophy, 82, 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Francescotti, R. (1999). How to define intrinsic properties. Noûs, 33, 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. K (1988/1997). What experience teaches: Proceedings of the Russellian Society, (pp. 29–57), reprint. In N. Block et al. (Eds.), The nature of consciousness: Philosophical debates (pp. 579–596) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. K. (2009). Ramseyan humility. In D. Bradden-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Maxwell, G. (2002). Rigid designators and mind-brain identity. In D. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenberg, G. H. (1999). On the intrinsic nature of the physical. In S. R. Hameroff, A. F. Kaszniak, & D. Chalmers (Eds.), Towards a science of consciousness III. Cambridge: M.I.T.Google Scholar
  17. Russell, B. (1927). The analysis of matter. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  18. Stoljar, D. (2006). Ignorance and imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Worrall, J (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 1–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Philosophical and Historical InquiryThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations