This paper advances a version of physicalism which reconciles the “a priori entailment thesis” (APET) with the analytic independence of our phenomenal and physical vocabularies. The APET is the claim that, if physicalism is true, the complete truths of physics imply every other truth a priori. If so, “cosmic hermeneutics” is possible: a demon having only complete knowledge of physics could deduce every truth about the world. Analytic independence is a popular physicalist explanation for the apparent “epistemic gaps” between phenomenal and physical truths. The two are generally seen as incompatible, since the demon’s deductions seem to presuppose analytic connections between physical and phenomenal terms. I begin by arguing, in support of the APET, that implications from the complete truths of physics to phenomenal truths cannot be a posteriori. Such implications are (according to the physicalist) necessarily true. But they cannot be Kripke-style a posteriori necessities, since (according to the physicalist) the complete truths of physics fix any relevant a posteriori facts about the reference of terms. I then show how the physicalist can turn the tables: the demon can exploit the physical fixing of reference to bridge the gap between the vocabularies, by deducing when phenomenal and physical terms co-refer. This opens the way for a “type-C” physicalism, which accepts in-principle deducibility while still appealing to analytic independence to explain why we (who are not demons) find it impossible to see phenomenal-physical connections a priori.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
I use “truth” for true statement; “fact” for a (genuine) feature of the world. Truths state facts. Note that the demon knows the truths of physics past, present and future. There is a distinct question (which Horgan calls “cosmic number-crunching”) as to whether a Laplacian demon which knew only about the present could deduce the past and future.
This approach is often called the “phenomenal concept strategy”, a label which is apparently due to Stoljar (2005)
The label “type C” comes from Chalmers’ (2003) classification of views on the mind–body problem. Views such as Loar’s, on which the relation between phenomenal and physical truths is entirely a posteriori, are type B. Views such as Lewis’s (1999), on which phenomenal truths follow analytically from physical truths, are type A. Type-C physicalism, in general terms, is the view that while phenomenal truths are deducible from physical truths, something prevents us making the deductions—which might be ignorance of the antecedent (as I argue) or cognitive closure (McGinn 1989).
The term “minimal physical duplicate” comes from Jackson (1993). Physicalism allows that physical duplicates of our world which are not minimal physical duplicates may differ from our world, e.g., by containing ectoplasm.
See Dennett (1990) for a denial that anything has these features.
For simplicity, assume that all terms used in P and R are rigid designators, so that there is no question of P ⊃ R being false of a world w simply because some term picks out different things in w and the actual world. Any non-rigid designators can be “rigidified” by stipulation (Kripke 1981, p. 149). In fact, this assumption can be dispensed with, for a reason that will emerge in the next section.
Further complications are sometimes introduced to deal with Perry’s claim that indexicals cannot be deduced from non-indexicals (Perry 1979), but I will pass over those here.
Horgan’s defence in (1983) does not specifically address phenomenal consciousness.
That assumption is contested, of course. I make it here because the question is whether physicalism is committed to a priori entailment, and physicalism includes physicalism about reference. In Sect. 7 below I discuss what happens if this assumption is false.
This is why, as mentioned in footnote 8, it doesn’t matter if terms in P and R are non-rigid. If, as the physicalist claims, the reference of terms in R is determined by facts stated by P, their reference cannot vary in P-worlds—except as a result of corresponding variation in the reference of terms in P. Accordingly, P ⊃ R will retain its truth value across worlds.
My notation, not Dowell’s.
See Sect. 4.1.
Not given the APET, the physicalist doesn’t need to claim that P ⊃ S is a priori, since type-B physicalism is back on the table.
At this point the demon’s inference resembles that suggested by Dowell (2008, p. 105), but on Dowell’s view, the analogue of (1) is not deducible from P (see Sect. 4.3). For Dowell, a priori implications from truths like (1) replace implications from fundamental physical truths alone in reductive explanations; while on the view I am arguing for, truths about reference serve as an avenue along which a priori implications from fundamental truths can run.
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.
Premise (1) is a posteriori despite being implied a priori by P, since P is itself a posteriori.
As mentioned in Sect. 2.1, I count physically realised functional phenomena as physical phenomena.
Again, I set aside the question of “semantic stability” (footnote 11 above). Type-C physicalism stands or falls with type-B on that issue.
That latter describes, e.g., Stoljar’s view (2006, p. 122). Thanks to Tom McClelland for the Rumsfeldism.
Crane (2003) argues that Mary could not have known that “phenomenal redness is like this”, since her lack of red experiences means that any use by her of the demonstrative “this” must have referred to something else. Still, as Crane says, there is no problem for physicalism here.
See the “experienced Mary” case discussed by Stoljar (2005).
For a recent argument, see Wedgwood (2009).
Balog, K. (2012). Acquaintance and the mind-body problem. In C. Hill & S. Gozzano (Eds.), New perspectives on type identity: The mental, the physical. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, N., & Stalnaker, R. (1999). Conceptual analysis, dualism and the explanatory gap. Philosophical Review, 108, 1–46.
Byrne, A. (1999). Cosmic hermeneutics. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 347–383.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2002). Does conceivability entail possibility? In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 145–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2003). Consciousness and its place in nature. In Blackwell guide to the philosophy of mind (pp. 102–142). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chalmers, D. J. (2007). Phenomenal concepts and the explanatory gap. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge: New essays on consciousness and physicalism (pp. 167–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The two-dimensional argument against materialism. In The character of consciousness (pp. 141–206). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J., & Jackson, F. (2001). Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation. Philosophical Review, 110, 315–361.
Conee, E. (1994). Phenomenal knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72, 136–150.
Crane, T. (2003). Subjective facts. In H. Lillehammer & G. Rodriguez-Pereyra (Eds.), Real metaphysics (pp. 68–83). London: Routledge.
Crane, T. (2009). Intentionalism. In B. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann, & S. Walter (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 474–493). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. (1990). Quining qualia. In W. G. Lycan (Ed.), Mind and cognition: A reader (pp. 519–547). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dowell, J. L. (2008). A priori entailment and conceptual analysis: Making room for type-C physicalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86, 93–111.
Hempel, C. (1969). Reduction: Ontological and linguistic facets. In S. Morgenbesser (Ed.), Essays in honour of ernest nagel (pp. 179–199). New York: St Martin’s Press.
Hill, C. S. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horgan, T. (1983). Supervenience and cosmic hermeneutics. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 22, 19–38.
Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.
Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn't know. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 291–295.
Jackson, F. (1993). Armchair metaphysics. In J. Hawthorne & M. Michael (Eds.), Philosophy in mind: The place of philosophy in the study of mind. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kallestrup, J. (2006). Physicalism, conceivability and strong necessities. Synthese, 151, 273–295.
Kripke, S. (1981). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 354–361.
Levine, J. (2001). Purple haze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1999). Reduction of mind. In Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 291–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loar, B. (1998). Phenomenal states. In Block, Flanagan & Guzeldere (Eds.), The nature of consciousness: Philosophical debates. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lycan, W. G. (1987). Consciousness. Cambridge: Bradford.
McGinn, C. (1989). Can we solve the mind-body problem? Mind, 98, 349–366.
McLaughlin, B. (1994). Varieties of supervenience. In E. Savellos & Ü. Yalchin (Eds.), Supervenience (pp. 16–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melnyk, A. (2003). A physicalist manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.
Nemirov, L. (2007). So this is what it’s like: A defence of the ability hypothesis. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge: New essays on consciousness and physicalism (pp. 32–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about consciousness (2004 paperback edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papineau, D. (2007). Phenomenal and perceptual concepts. In Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 111–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.
Stoljar, D. (2005). Physicalism and phenomenal concepts. Mind and Language, 20, 469–494.
Stoljar, D. (2006). Ignorance and imagination: The epistemic origin of the problem of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tye, M. (1999). Phenomenal consciousness: The explanatory gap as cognitive illusion. Mind, 108, 705–725.
Wedgwood, R. (2009). The normativity of the intentional. In B. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann, & S. Walter (Eds.), The oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 421–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, S. L. (2007). Property dualism, phenomenal concepts, and the semantic premise. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge: New essays on consciousness and physicalism (pp. 210–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yablo, S. (2002). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 441–492). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I would like to thank Tim Crane, Matt Nudds, Tom McClelland and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and discussions. Special thanks are due Alex Oliver for comments and support throughout the paper's development.
About this article
Cite this article
Boutel, A. How to be a type-C physicalist. Philos Stud 164, 301–320 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9854-2
- Phenomenal consciousness
- A priori entailment thesis
- Analytic independence
- Cosmic hermeneutics