Philosophia

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 877–883 | Cite as

Is the United States Phenomenally Conscious? Reply to Kammerer

Article

Abstract

In Schwitzgebel (Philosophical Studies 172:1697-1721, 2015) I argued that the United States, considered as a concrete entity with people as some or all of its parts, meets plausible materialistic criteria for consciousness. Kammerer (Philosophia 43:1047-1057, 2015) defends materialism against this seemingly unintuitive conclusion by means of an “anti-nesting principle” according to which group entities cannot be literally phenomenally conscious if they contain phenomenally conscious subparts (such as people) who stand in a certain type of functional relation to the group as a whole. I raise three concerns about Kammerer’s view. First, it’s not clear that it excludes the literal phenomenal consciousness of actually existing groups of people, as one might hope such a principle would do. Second, Kammerer’s principle appears to make the literal phenomenal consciousness of a group depend in an unintuitive way on internal structural details of individuals within the group. Third, the principle appears to be ad hoc.

Keywords

Consciousness Group consciousness Collective consciousness Group minds Functionalism 

References

  1. Bayne, T., & Montague, M., eds. (2011). Cognitive phenomenology. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Block, N. (1978/2007). Troubles with functionalism. In N. Block, Consciousness, function, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Kammerer, F. (2015). How a materialist can deny that the United States is probably conscious—response to Schwitzgebel. Philosophia, 43, 1047–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Moore, A. T. (2016). The experience of reading. PhD dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of California at Riverside.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, H. (1967). Psychological predicates. In W. H. Capitan and D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Art, mind, and religion. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  9. Schwitzgebel, E. (2014). The crazyist metaphysics of mind. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92, 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schwitzgebel, E. (2015). If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious. Philosophical Studies, 172, 1697–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Thomasson, A. L. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Tononi, G. (2012). The Integrated Information Theory of consciousness: An updated account. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 150, 290--326.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations