Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 159–183 | Cite as

QUALIA UND PHYSIKALISMUS

  • JÜRGEN SCHRÖDER
Article

Abstract

Qualia and Physicalism. It is assumed that the following three relations exhaust the possibilities for a physicalist account of qualia: 1. determination, 2. identity, 3. realization. The first relation is immediately rejected because it does not exclude property dualism. The second faces the problem that it is probably impossible to discriminate empirically between the identity thesis and the epiphenomenalist position. The third cannot handle qualia adequately, for qualia are not functional properties and the realization relation is only plausible as a relation between physical realizers and functional properties. Finally, if one attempts to replace multiple realization by multiple identities it is shown that the notion of multiple property identities is unintelligible. The upshot is that if these three relations exhaust the possibilities of a physicalist construal of qualia then physicalism is wrong.

qualia physicalism property identity epiphenomenalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

LITERATURVERZEICHNIS

  1. Beckermann, A.: 1992, ‘Introduction–Reductive and Nonreductive Physicalism’, in: A. Beckermann, H. Flohr und J. Kim, (eds.), Emergence or Reduction?, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Bieri, P.: 1992,,Was macht Bewußtsein zu einem Rätsel?‘, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Oktober, 48–56.Google Scholar
  3. Block, N.: 1978, ‘Troubles with Functionalism’, in: W. Savage, (ed.), Perception and Cognition. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IX, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 261–325.Google Scholar
  4. Block, N.: 1980, ‘Are Absent Qualia Impossible?’, The Philosophical Review 89, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, N.: 1990, ‘Inverted Earth’, Philosophical Perspectives 4, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, N.: 1992, ‘What Does Neuropsychology Tell Us about a Function of Consciousness?’ Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, zitiert in Flanagan, O., ConsciousnessReconsidered, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  7. Causey, R.: 1972, ‘Attribute–Identities in Microreductions’, Journal of Philosophy, LXIX, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane, T. und Mellor, D. H.: 1990, ‘There is no Question of Physicalism’, Mind 99, 185–206.Google Scholar
  9. Cummins, R.: 1983, The Nature of Psychological Explanation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, D.: 1993a, ‘Quining Qualia’, in: A. J. Marcel und E. Bisiach, (eds.), Consciousness in Contemporary Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Dennett, D.: 1993b, Consciousness Explained, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, G.: 1992, Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Feigl, H.: 1958, ‘The Mental and the Physical’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 370–497Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J.: 1968, Psychological Explanation, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Hellman, G. P. und Thompson, F. W.: 1975, ‘Physicalism: Ontology, Determination, and Reduction’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooker, C. A.: 1981, ‘Towards a General Theory of Reduction’, Dialogue XX, 38–59, 201–235, 495–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kripke, S.: 1980, Naming and Necessity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Putnam, H.: 1960, ‘Minds and Machines’, in: S. Hook (ed.), Dimensions of Mind, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Searle, J.: 1990, ‘Consciousness, Explanatory Inversion, and Cognitive Science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 585–642.Google Scholar
  21. Schröder, J.: 1995, ‘Token-Identity, Consciousness, and the Connection Principle’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18, 615–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weiskrantz, L.: 1986, Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Wimsatt, W.: 1976, ‘Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem’, in: G. Globus, G. Maxwell, und I. Savodnik (eds.), Consciousness and the Brain, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • JÜRGEN SCHRÖDER
    • 1
  1. 1.D-Heidelberg

Personalised recommendations