Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:09:30.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2019

Edited by
Sam Coleman
Sam Coleman
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Knowledge Argument , pp. 281 - 298
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Ghazālī., c. 1106/1980. The Deliverance from Error (المنقذ من الضلا), trans. R. J. McCarthy. In Al-Ghazālī, Freedom and Fulfillment. Boston, MA: Twayne.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 1995. ‘Mary’s New Perspective.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (4): 585–4.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 1998. ‘A Limited Defense of the Knowledge Argument.’ Philosophical Studies 90: 35–56.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 2001. ‘Know-How, Ability, and the Ability Hypothesis.’ Theoria 67: 229–39.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 2007. ‘Does Representationalism Undermine the Knowledge Argument?’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 65–76.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 2013. ‘Social Externalism and the Knowledge Argument.’ Mind 122(486): 481–96.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 2016. ‘The Structure and Dynamics Argument against Materialism.’ Noûs 50(4): 794–815; 2015 pre-print online version available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nous.12134.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin. 2017. ‘Physicalism and the Knowledge Argument.’ In M. Velmans and S. Schneider (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell: 404–14.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin and Howell, Robert J.. 2009. A Dialogue on Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin and Nagasawa, Yujin. 2012. ‘What Is Russellian Monism?’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 19(9–10): 67–95.Google Scholar
Alter, Torin and Walter, Sven (eds.). 2001. Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1975. ‘The First Person.’ In Guttenplan, Samuel D. (ed.) Mind and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 45–65.Google Scholar
Antony, L. 2007. ‘Everybody Has Got It: A Defense of Non-reductive Materialism.’ In McLaughlin, B. and Cohen, J. (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell: 143–59.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1961. Perception and the Physical World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1968. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1978. A Theory of Universals, vol. II: Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aydede, M. (ed.) 2005. Pain: New Essays on Its Nature and the Methodology of Its Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ball, D. 2009. ‘There Are No Phenomenal Concepts.’ Mind 118: 935–62.Google Scholar
Ball, D. 2013. ‘Consciousness and Conceptual Mastery: Reply to Alter.’ Mind 122: 497–508.Google Scholar
Balog, K. 1999. ‘Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem.’ Philosophical Review 108: 497–528.Google Scholar
Balog, K. 2009. ‘Phenomenal Concepts.’ In McLaughlin, Brian, Beckermann, Ansgar and Walter, Sven (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 292–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balog, K. 2012. ‘In Defense of the Phenomenal Concept Strategy.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84: 1–23.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. 1982. Quality and Concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. 1994. ‘Mental Properties.’ Journal of Philosophy 91: 185–208.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. 2002. ‘Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance.’ In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 71–125.Google Scholar
Bengson, John and Moffett, Marc (eds.). 2011. Knowing How: Essays on Knowledge, Mind, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, K. 2003. ‘Why the Exclusion Problem Seems Intractable, and How, Just Maybe, to Tract It.’ Noûs 37: 471–97.Google Scholar
Bennett, K. 2011. ‘By Our Bootstraps.’ Philosophical Perspectives 25: 27–41.Google Scholar
Berger, Jacob. 2018. ‘A Defense of Holistic Representationalism.’ Mind & Language 33(2): 161–76.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Block, N. 1978. ‘Troubles with Functionalism.’ Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9: 261–325.Google Scholar
Block, N. 1995. ‘On a Confusion about a Function of Consciousness.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18(2): 227–87.Google Scholar
Block, N. 2002. ‘The Harder Problem of Consciousness.’ Journal of Philosophy 99(8): 391–425.Google Scholar
Block, N. 2006. ‘Max Black’s Objection to Mind-Body Identity.’ In Zimmerman, Dean (ed.) Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press: 3–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. 2016. ‘Tweaking the Concepts of Perception and Cognition.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: 21–2. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X15002733Google Scholar
Breitmeyer, Bruno G. and Öğmen, Haluk. 2006. Visual Masking: Time Slices through Conscious and Unconscious Vision, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1925. The Mind and its Place in Nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Brogaard, Berit 2011. ‘Centered Worlds and the Content of Perception.’ In Hales, Steven D. (ed.) A Companion to Relativism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 137–58.Google Scholar
Brown, T. 1806. Observations of the Nature and Tendency of the Doctrine of Mr. Hume, Concerning the Relation of Cause and Effect, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Mundell and Son.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1979. ‘Individualism and the Mental.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73–121. Reprinted in his Foundations of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007: 100–50.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1982. ‘Other Bodies.’ In Woodfield, A. (ed.) Thought and Object: Essays on Intentionality. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 97–120.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2003. ‘Qualia and Intentional Content: Reply to Block.’ In Hahn, M. and Ramberg, B. (eds.) Reflections and Replies: Essays on the Philosophy of Tyler Burge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 405–16.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2007. ‘Postscript to “Individualism and the Mental”.’ In Foundations of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press: 151–81.Google Scholar
Burns, Edward M. and Dixon Ward., W. 1982. ‘Intervals, Scales, and Tuning.’ In Deutsch, Diana (ed.) The Psychology of Music. New York: Academic Press: 241–69.Google Scholar
Byrne, Alex. 2001. ‘Intentionalism Defended.’ Philosophical Review 110(2): 199–240.Google Scholar
Byrne, Alex. 2006. ‘Review of Peter Ludlow, Yujin Nagasawa, and Daniel Stoljar (eds.), There’s Something about Mary (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/there-s-something-about-mary/.Google Scholar
Campbell, Neil. 2003. ‘An Inconsistency in the Knowledge Argument.’ Erkenntnis 58: 261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis. English translation: The Logical Structure of the World, trans. R. George. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1932–3. ‘Psychology in Physical Language.’ Erkenntnis 3: 107–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruth, A. 2016. ‘Powerful Qualities, Zombies and Inconceivability.’ Philosophical Quarterly 66(262): 25–46.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2000. Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2004. ‘Phenomenal Concepts and Higher-Order Experiences.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68(2): 316–36.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2002. ‘Consciousness and its Place in Nature.’ In Chalmers, D. (ed.) Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 247–72.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2003. ‘Consciousness and Its Place in Nature.’ In Stich, Stephen P. and Warfield, Ted A. (eds.) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell: 102–42.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2004a. ‘Phenomenal Concepts and the Knowledge Argument.’ In Ludlow, P., Stoljar, D. and Nagasawa, Y (eds.) There’s Something about Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 269–98.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2004b. ‘The Representational Character of Experience.’ In Leiter, B. (ed.) The Future for Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 153–81.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2006. ‘Perception and the Fall from Eden.’ In Gendler, Tamar Szabó and Hawthorne, John (eds.) Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 49–125.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2007. ‘Phenomenal Concepts and the Explanatory Gap.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 167–94.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2009/2010. ‘The Two-Dimensional Argument against Materialism.’ In The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press: 141–91.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2010a. The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2010b. ‘The Content of Phenomenal Concepts’. In The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press: 251–76.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2012. Constructing the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2015. ‘Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism.’ In Alter, Torin and Nagasawa, Yujin (eds.) Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press: 246–76.Google Scholar
Cheesman, Jim and Merikle, Philip M.. 1986. ‘Distinguishing Conscious from Unconscious Perceptual Processes.’ Canadian Journal of Psychology 40(4): 343–67.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. 1955–6. ‘Sentences about Believing.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 125–48.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. 1957. Perceiving. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. 1969. ‘On the Observability of the Self.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30: 7–21.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M. 1976. Person and Object. Lasalle, PA: Open Court.Google Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. 1996. ‘The Hornswoggle Problem.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 3(5–6): 402–8.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul. 1985. ‘Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of Brain States.’ Journal of Philosophy 82: 8–28.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul. 1997. ‘Knowing Qualia: A Reply to Jackson.’ In Block, N., Flanagan, O. and Güzeldere, G. (eds.) The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 571–8.Google Scholar
Churchland, Paul. 2007. ‘On the Reality (and Diversity) of Objective Colors: How Color-Qualia Space Is a Map of Reflectance-Profile Space.’ Philosophy of Science 74(2): 119–49.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1985. ‘Spectrum Inversion and the Color Solid.’ Southern Journal of Philosophy 23(4): 431–43.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1993. Sensory Qualities. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. 2009a. ‘Mind under Matter.’ In Skrbina, D. and Globus, G. (eds.) Mind that Abides: Panpsychism in the New Millennium. Amsterdam: Benjamins: 83–108.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. 2009b. ‘Why the Ability Hypothesis Is Best Forgotten.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 16: 74–97.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. 2014. ‘The Real Combination Problem: Panpsychism, Micro-Subjects, and Emergence.’ Erkenntnis 79(1): 19–44.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. 2016. ‘Panpsychism and Neutral Monism: How to Make Up One’s Mind.’ In Brüntrup, G. and Jaskolla, L. (eds.) Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 249–82.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. and Goff, P.. In press. ‘Russellian Monism.’ In Kriegel, U. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Consciousness.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 1994. ‘Phenomenal Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 136–50.Google Scholar
Corabi, Joseph. 2008. ‘Pleasure’s Role in Evolution: A Response to Robinson.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 15: 78–86.Google Scholar
Corcoran, K. 2001. ‘The Trouble with Searle’s Biological Naturalism.’ Erkenntnis 55(3): 307–24.Google Scholar
Crane, Tim. 2001. Elements of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crane, Tim. 2003. ‘Subjective Facts.’ In Lillehammer, H. and Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (eds.) Real Metaphysics. London: Routledge: 68–83.Google Scholar
Crane, Tim. 2005. ‘Papineau on Phenomenal Concepts.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 155–62.Google Scholar
Crane, T. and Mellor, D. H.. 1990. ‘There is No Question of Physicalism.’ Mind 99(394): 185–206.Google Scholar
Cutter, B. and Tye, M.. 2014. ‘Pains and Reasons: Why It Is Rational to Kill the Messenger.’ Philosophical Quarterly 64(256): 423–33.Google Scholar
Damnjanovic, N. 2012. ‘Revelation and Physicalism.’ Dialectica 66(1): 69–91.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S. 2014. ‘The Possibility of Physicalism.’ Journal of Philosophy 111(9): 557–92.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S. 2016. ‘Metaphysical Rationalism.’ Noûs 50(2): 379–418.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1970/1980. ‘How Is Weakness of the Will Possible?’ In Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Brigard, Felipe. 2014. ‘In Defence of the Self-Stultification Objection.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 21: 120–30.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. and Friedman, M. 1989. ‘The Concept of Structure in The Analysis of Matter.’ In Wade Savage, C. and Anthony Anderson, C. (eds.) Rereading Russell: Essays in Bertrand Russell’s Metaphysics and Epistemology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 183–99.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1969. Content and Consciousness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1980. ‘The Milk of Human Intentionality.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3): 428–30.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1988. ‘Quining Qualia.’ In Marcel, A. and Bisiach, E. (eds.) Consciousness in Contemporary Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42–77.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 2007. ‘What RoboMary Knows.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 15–31.Google Scholar
deRosset, L. 2013. ‘Grounding Explanations.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 13: 1–26.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1641/1985. Meditations and Objections and Replies, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. II, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–61; 63–397.Google Scholar
Diaz-Leon, E. 2010. ‘Can Phenomenal Concepts Explain the Epistemic Gap?’ Mind 119(476): 933–51.Google Scholar
Diaz-Leon, E. 2014. ‘Do A Posteriori Physicalists Get Our Phenomenal Concepts Wrong?’ Ratio 27(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Dienes, Zoltán. 2004. ‘Assumptions of Subjective Measures of Unconscious Mental States: Higher-Order Thoughts and Bias.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 11(9): 25–45.Google Scholar
Drake, D., Lovejoy, A. O., Pratt, J. B., Rogers, A. K., Santayana, G., Sellars, R. W. and Strong, C. A.. 1920. Essays in Critical Realism: A Co-Operative Study of the Problem of Knowledge. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred I. 1977. ‘Laws of Nature.’ Philosophy of Science 44(2): 248–68.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred I. 1995. Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois-Reymond, E. 1874. ‘The Limits of Our Knowledge of Nature.’ Popular Science Monthly 5: 17–32.Google Scholar
Dunne, J. W. 1927. An Experiment with Time. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Eddington, A. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egan, Andy. 2006. ‘Appearance Properties.’ Noûs 40: 495–521.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2010. ‘An Essentialist Perspective on the Problem of Induction.’ Principia 2(1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Katalin. 2015. ‘Knowing-wh Does Not Reduce to Know-that.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 53(2): 111–24.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. 1958/1967. The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’: The Essay and a Postscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Duque, Diego and Thornton., Ian M. 2000. ‘Change Detection without Awareness: Do Explicit Reports Underestimate the Representation of Change in the Visual System?’ Visual Cognition 7(1–3): 324–44.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1994. ‘Essence and Modality.’ Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 2001.‘The Question of Realism.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 2012.‘Guide to Ground.’ In Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.) Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 37–80.Google Scholar
Firestone, Chaz and Scholl, Brian J.. 2016. ‘Cognition Does Not Affect Perception: Evaluating the Evidence for “Top-Down” Effects.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X15000965Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1989. ‘Making Mind Matter More.’ Philosophical Topics 17: 59–79.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. 2005. ‘Universals as Sense Data.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 622–31.Google Scholar
Foster, J. 2000. The Nature of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892/1993. ‘On Sense and Reference.’ In Moore, A. W. (ed.) Meaning and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 23–42.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918–19/1988. ‘Thoughts.’ In Salmon, N. and Soames, S. (eds.) Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 33–55.Google Scholar
Funkhouser, E. 2006. ‘The Determinable-Determinate Relation.’ Noûs 40(3): 548–69.Google Scholar
Gendler, Tamar Szabó. 2000. ‘The Puzzle of Imaginative Resistance.’ Journal of Philosophy 97(2): 55–81.Google Scholar
George, B. R. 2013. ‘Knowing-“wh,” Mention-some Readings, and Non-Reducibility.’ Thought 2(2): 166–77.Google Scholar
Gertler, Brie. 2001. ‘Introspecting Phenomenal States.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(2): 305–28.Google Scholar
Gertler, Brie. 2012. ‘Renewed Acquaintance.’ In Smithies, Declan and Stoljar, Daniel (eds.) Introspection and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 89–123.Google Scholar
Gibb, S. C. 2014. ‘Recent Work on Mental Causation.’ Analysis 74(2): 327–38.Google Scholar
Goff, P. 2010. ‘Ghosts and Sparse Properties: Why the Physicalist Has More to Fear from Ghosts than Zombies.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 119–39.Google Scholar
Goff, P. 2011. ‘A Posteriori Physicalists Get Our Phenomenal Concepts Wrong,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89(2): 191–209.Google Scholar
Goff, P. 2015a. ‘Real Acquaintance and Physicalism.’ In Coates, P. and Coleman, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Qualities. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 121–45.Google Scholar
Goff, P. 2015b. ‘Against Constitutive Russellian Monism.’ In Alter, Torin and Nagasawa, Yujin (eds.) Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press: 370–400.Google Scholar
Goff, P. 2017. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goff, P.In press a. ‘Essentialist modal rationalism.’ In Synthese.Google Scholar
Goff, P. In press b. ‘Panpsychism.’ In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1951. The Structure of Appearance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Graff, D. 2001. ‘Phenomenal Continua and the Sorites.’ Mind 110(440): 905–35.Google Scholar
Grahek, Nikola. 2007. Feeling Pain and Being in Pain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grandin, Temple. 2006. Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism, 2nd edn. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Halsey, Rita M. and Chapanis., Alphonse 1951. ‘On the Number of Absolutely Identifiable Spectral Hues.’ Journal of the Optical Society of America 41(12): 1057–8.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1990. ‘The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.’ In Tomberlin, James (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives, 4: Action Theory and Philosophy of Mind. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press: 31–52.Google Scholar
Harrison, Bernard. 1967. ‘On Describing the Colours.’ Inquiry 10: 38–52.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2001. ‘Causal Structuralism.’ Philosophical Perspectives 15: 361–78.Google Scholar
Hazen, A. P. 1999. ‘On Naming the Colours.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 224–31.Google Scholar
Heikinheimo, A. and Vaaja, T. 2013. ‘The Redundancy of the Knowledge Argument in The Conscious Mind.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 20(5–6): 6–26.Google Scholar
Heinsenberg, W. 1937. ‘Gedanken der Naturphilosophie in der modernen Physik.’ Die Antike 13: 118–24.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1996. ‘The Semantics of Questions.’ In Lappin, Shalom (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell: 361–83.Google Scholar
Hill, C. S. 1997. ‘Imaginability, Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem.’ Philosophical Studies 87: 61–85.Google Scholar
Hill, Christopher S. and McLaughlin, Brian P.. 1999. ‘There Are Fewer Things in Reality Than Are Dreamt of in Chalmers’s Philosophy.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59(2): 445–54.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1655. De Corpore. London.Google Scholar
Holton, Richard. 2004. ‘Review of Daniel Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will.’ Mind 113(449): 218–21.Google Scholar
Horgan, Terence E. 1984. ‘Jackson on Physical Information and Qualia.’ Philosophical Quarterly 34: 147–52.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1993. ‘From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of the Material World.’ Mind 102(408): 555–86.Google Scholar
Horgan, Terence E. and Tienson, John L.. 2001. ‘Deconstructing New Wave Materialism.’ In Gillett, Carl and Loewer, Barry M. (eds.) Physicalism and Its Discontents. New York: Cambridge University Press: 307–18.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2006. ‘Self-Knowledge and Self-Reference.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72(1): 44–70.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2007. ‘The Knowledge Argument and Objectivity.’ Philosophical Studies 135(2): 145–77.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2008. ‘Subjective Physicalism.’ In Wright, E. (ed.) The Case for Qualia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 125–40.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2009a. ‘The Ontology of Subjective Physicalism.’ Noûs 43(2): 315–45.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2009b. ‘Emergentism and Supervenience Physicalism.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 83–98.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. 2013. Consciousness and the Limits of Objectivity: The Case for Subjective Physicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert J. n.d. Comments on Montero’s ‘Must Physicalism Imply the Supervenience of the Mental on the Physical?’ https://consciousnessonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/howell-comments-on-montero.pdf.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1739/1985. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H. 1886/1892. ‘Science and Morals.’ In Essays upon Some Controverted Questions. New York: Appleton: 163–83.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1977. Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1982. ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia.’ Philosophical Quarterly 32(127):127–36.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1986. ‘What Mary Didn’t Know.’ Journal of Philosophy 83: 291–95.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1993. ‘Armchair Metaphysics.’ In Michael, M. and O’Leary-Hawthorne, J. (eds.) Philosophy in Mind. Amsterdam: Kluwer: 23–42.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1995. ‘Postscript to “What Mary Did Not Know”.’ In Moser, Paul and Trout, J. D. (eds.) Contemporary Materialism. London: Routledge: 192–8.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1998a. From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1998b. ‘Postscript on Qualia.’ In Mind, Method and Conditionals. London: Routledge: 76–9.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2002. ‘Representation and Experience.’ In Clapin, H., Slezack, P. and Staines, P. (eds.) Representation in Mind: New Approaches to Mental Representation. Westport, CT: Praeger: 107–24.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2003. ‘Mind and Illusion.’ In O’Hear, A. (ed.) Minds and Persons. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 251–71.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2005a. ‘The Case for A Priori Physicalism.’ In Christian, N. and Beckermann, A. (eds.) Philosophy–Science–Scientific Philosophy. Main Lectures and Colloquia of GAP.5, Fifth International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy. Paderborn: Mentis: 251–65.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2005b. ‘Consciousness.’ In Jackson, Frank and Smith, Michael (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 310–33.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2007. The Knowledge Argument, Diaphanousness, Representationalism.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 52–64.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 2016. ‘What Physicalists Have to Say about the Knowledge Argument.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 93: 511–524.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank In press. ‘A Priori Physicalism.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank and Pinkerton, R. J.. 1973. ‘On an Argument against Sensory Items.’ Mind 82: 269–72.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. D. 2011. ‘Powerful Qualities, Not Pure Powers.’ The Monist 94(1): 81–102.Google Scholar
James, William. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 2004. ‘The Obscure Object of Hallucination.’ Philosophical Studies 120: 113–83.Google Scholar
Kadic, N. 2017. ‘The Grounding Problem for Panpsychism and the Identity Theory of Powers.’ Croatian Journal of Philosophy 17(1): 45–55.Google Scholar
Kahane, Guy. 2010. ‘Feeling Pain for the Very First Time: The Normative Knowledge Argument.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80(1): 20–49.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1781–7/1933. Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N. Kemp Smith. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1783/1953. Prolegomena, trans. P. G. Lucas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, Thomas, Théorot, Hugo and Pascual-Leone., Alvaro 2002. ‘Braille Character Discrimination in Blindfolded Human Subjects.’ NeuroReport 13(5): 571–4.Google Scholar
Kind, Amy. 2016a. ‘Introduction: Exploring Imagination.’ In Kind, Amy (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination. Abingdon: Routledge: 1–11Google Scholar
Kind, Amy. 2016b. ‘The Snowman’s Imagination.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 53: 341–8.Google Scholar
Kind, Amy. 2016c. ‘Imagining Under Constraints.’ In Kind, Amy and Kung, Peter (eds.) Knowledge Through Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 145–59.Google Scholar
Kind, Amy. 2018. ‘How Imagination Gives Rise to Knowledge.’ In Dorsch, Fabian and Macpherson, Fiona (eds.) Perceptual Memory and Perceptual Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press 227–246.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. 2005. Zombies and Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. 2013. The Conceptual Link from the Mental to the Physical. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kriegel, U. 2009. Subjective Consciousness: A Self-Representational Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972. ‘Naming and necessity.’ In Harman and Davidson Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuehni, Rolf G. 2010. ‘Color Spaces and Color Order Systems.’ In Cohen, Jonathan and Matthen, Mohan (eds.) Color Ontology and Color Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 3–36.Google Scholar
Kung, Peter. 2016. ‘You Really Do Imagine It: Against Error Theories of Imagination.’ Noûs 50: 90–120.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. 2007. Everything Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laloyaux, Cédric, Destrebecqz, Arnaud and Cleeremans., Axel 2003. ‘Implicit Change Identification: A Replication of Fernandez-Duque and Thornton (2003).’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32(6): 1366–79.Google Scholar
Landini, G. 2011. Russell. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lange, F. A. 1865–75/1925. The History of Materialism and Criticism of its Present Importance, trans. E. C. Thomas with an introduction by Bertrand Russell. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Langton, R. 1998. Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
Lavie, Nilli. 1995. ‘Perceptual Load as a Necessary Condition for Selective Attention.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21(3): 451–68.Google Scholar
Lavie, Nilli. 2010. ‘Attention, Distraction, and Cognitive Control under Load.’ Current Directions in Psychological Science 19(3): 143–8.Google Scholar
Lavie, Nilli, Beck, Diane M. and Konstantinou., Nikos 2014. ‘Blinded by the Load: Attention, Awareness, and the Role of Perceptual Load.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1641): 1–10.Google Scholar
Leuenberger, S. 2013. ‘Grounding and Necessity.’ Inquiry 57(2): 151–74.Google Scholar
Levin, J. 2007a. ‘What Is a Phenomenal Concept?’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 87–110.Google Scholar
Levin, J. 2007b. ‘Nagel vs. Nagel on the Nature of Phenomenal Concepts.’ Ratio 20(3): 293–307.Google Scholar
Levine, Joseph. 1983. ‘Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64: 354–61.Google Scholar
Levine, Joseph. 2007. ‘Phenomenal Concepts and the Materialist Constraint.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 143–76.Google Scholar
Levy, Neil. 2013. ‘The Importance of Awareness.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91: 221–9.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1973. ‘Causation.’ Journal of Philosophy 70(17): 556–67.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. ‘Attitudes de Dicto and de Se.’ Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1983a. ‘Postscript to “Mad Pain and Martian Pain”.’ In Philosophical Papers I. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 130–2.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1983b. ‘New Work for a Theory of Universals.’ In Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 8–55.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1996. ‘Reduction of Mind.’ In Guttenplan, S. (ed.) A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Blackwell: 412–30.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1997. ‘Naming the Colours.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75: 325–42.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1999. ‘What Experience Teaches.’ In Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 262–290. Originally in Proceedings of the Russellian Society, Sydney: University of Sydney, 13 (1988): 29–57.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 2009. ‘Ramseyan Humility.’ In Braddon-Mitchell, D. and Nola, R. (eds.) Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 203–22.Google Scholar
Libet, Benjamin. 2004. Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, Georg. 1971. Schriften und Briefe, vol. II, ed. Promies, W.. Munich: Carl Hanser.Google Scholar
Loar, B. 1997. ‘Phenomenal States.’ In Block, N., Flanagan, O. and Güzeldere, G. (eds.) The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 597–616. Adapted from a version in Philosophical Perspectives 4, 1990.Google Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, D. 2003. ‘Qualia, Properties, Modality.’ Philosophical Issues 13(1): 113–29.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1689/1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Nidditch, P. H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2012. ‘What Is the Source of Our Knowledge of Modal Truths?’ Mind 121(484): 919–50.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P., Stoljar, D. and Nagasawa, Y (eds.) 2004. There’s Something about Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. 1996. Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, T. 2013. ‘The Neo-Russellian Ignorance Hypothesis: A Hybrid Account of Phenomenal Consciousness.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 20(3–4): 125–51.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1984. ‘De Re Senses.’ Philosophical Quarterly 34: 283–94.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1989. ‘Can We Solve the Mind–Body Problem?’ Mind 98: 349–66.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 2004a. Mindsight: Image, Dream, Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 2004b. ‘The Objects of Intentionality.’ In Consciousness and Its Objects. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 220–48.Google Scholar
Machery, Edouard. 2009. Doing without Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. 2001. ‘In Defence of New Wave Materialism: A Response to Horgan and Tienson.’ In Gillett, C. and Loewer, B. (eds.) Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press: 319–30.Google Scholar
Maddox, Steve. 2007. ‘Mathematical Equations in Braille.’ MSOR Connections 7: 45–8.Google Scholar
Malebranche, N. 1688/1997. Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion, ed. Jolley, N. and Scott., D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mandik, P. 2009. ‘The Neurophilosophy of Subjectivity.’ In Bickle, J (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press: 601–18.Google Scholar
Marcel, Anthony J. 1983. ‘Conscious and Unconscious Perception: An Approach to the Relations between Phenomenal Experience and Perceptual Processes.’ Cognitive Psychology 15(2): 238–300.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. 1978. ‘Rigid Designators and Mind-Brain Identity.’ In Wade Savage, C. (ed.) Perception and Cognition: Issues in the Foundations of Psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 365–403.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred. 2013. ‘Unconscious Decisions and Free Will.’ Philosophical Psychology 26: 777–89.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. 1993. ‘Nothing Like Experience.’Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93: 1–16.Google Scholar
Melnyk, Andrew. 2003. A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mendola, J. 2008. Anti-Externalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michotte, Albert. 1963. The Perception of Causality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mihalik, J. 2016. ‘Consciousness in Nature: A Russellian Approach.’ PhD thesis, Charles University Prague.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. 2001. ‘Post-Physicalism.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 8: 61–80.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. 2007. ‘Physicalism Could Be True Even If Mary Learns Something New.’ Philosophical Quarterly 57: 176–89.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. 2012. ‘Irreverent Physicalism.’ Philosophical Topics 40(2): 91–102.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. 2013. ‘Must Physicalism Imply Supervenience of the Mental on the Physical?’ Journal of Philosophy 110: 93–110.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. 2015. ‘Russellian Physicalism.’ In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (eds.) Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press: 209–23.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1922. ‘The Refutation of Idealism.’ In Philosophical Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul: 1–30.Google Scholar
Mørch, H. 2014. ‘Panpsychism and Causation: A New Argument and a Solution to the Combination Problem.’ PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Mumford, Stephen. 2004. Laws in Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin. 2010. ‘The Knowledge Argument and Epiphenomenalism.’ Erkenntnis 72(1): 37–56.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1974. ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat?’ Philosophical Review 83(4): 435–50.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1979. ‘Subjective and Objective.’ In Mortal Questions. New York: Cambridge University Press: 207–22.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2009. ‘Imagining, Recognizing and Discriminating: Reconsidering the Ability Hypothesis.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 699–717.Google Scholar
Nemirow, Laurence. 1979. ‘Functionalism and the Subjective Quality of Experience.’ PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Nemirow, Laurence. 1980. ‘Review of Mortal Questions, by Thomas Nagel.’ Philosophical Review 89: 473–7.Google Scholar
Nemirow, Laurence. 1990. ‘Physicalism and the Cognitive Role of Acquaintance. In Lycan, W. (ed.) Mind and Cognition: A Reader. Oxford.: Basil Blackwell: 490–9.Google Scholar
Nemirow, Laurence. 2007. ‘So This Is What It’s Like: A Defense of the Ability Hypothesis.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 32–51.Google Scholar
Newman, N. H. A. 1928. ‘Mr Russell’s Causal Theory of Perception.’ Mind 37(146): 26–43.Google Scholar
Ney, A. 2008a. ‘Defining Physicalism.’ Philosophy Compass 3(5): 1033–48.Google Scholar
Ney, A. 2008b. ‘Physicalism as an Attitude.’ Philosophical Studies 138: 1–15.Google Scholar
Nida-Rümelin, M. 1995. ‘What Mary Couldn’t Know: Belief about Phenomenal States.’ In Metzinger, T. (ed.) Conscious Experience. Exeter: Imprint Academic: 219–42.Google Scholar
Nida-Rümelin, M. 1998. ‘On Belief about Experiences: An Epistemological Distinction Applied to the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 51–73.Google Scholar
Nida-Rümelin, M. 2007. ‘Grasping Phenomenal Properties.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 307–49.Google Scholar
Nida-Rümelin, M. 2009. ‘Qualia: The Knowledge Argument.’ In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/qualia-knowledge/.Google Scholar
Noordhof, Paul. 2003. ‘Something Like Ability.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81: 21–40.Google Scholar
Overgaard, Morten, Rote, Julian, Mouridsen, Kim and Ramsøy., Thomas Zoëga 2006. ‘Is Conscious Perception Gradual or Dichotomous? A Comparison of Report Methodologies during a Visual Task.’ Consciousness and Cognition 15(4): 700–8.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 1993. Philosophical Naturalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 1998. ‘Mind the Gap.’ Philosophical Perspectives 12(S12): 373–89.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 2001. ‘The Rise of Physicalism.’ In Gillett, Carl and Loewer, Barry (eds.) Physicalism and Its Discontents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 3–36.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 2002. Thinking about Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 2006. ‘Comments on Galen Strawson.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 13(10–11): 100–9.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 2007. ‘Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 111–44.Google Scholar
Pautz, A. 2006. Online reply to John Bengson, ‘Being Aware of Uninstantiated Universals’, at http://rationalhunter.typepad.com/close_range/2006/12/being_aware_of_.html.Google Scholar
Pautz, A. 2007. ‘Intentionalism and Perceptual Presence.’ Philosophical Perspectives 21: 495–541.Google Scholar
Pautz, A. 2013. ‘Does Phenomenology Ground Mental Content?’ In Kriegel, Uriah (ed.) Phenomenal Intentionality: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 194–234.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. 1992. A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. 2002. ‘Sensation and the Content of Experience: A Distinction.’ In Chalmers, David J. (ed.) The Philosophy of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press: 435–46.Google Scholar
Peels, Rik. 2016. ‘The Empirical Case against Introspection.’ Philosophical Studies 173(9): 2461–85.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk 1995. ‘Conceptual Structure and the Individuation of Content.’ Philosophical Perspectives 9: 401–26.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk 2002. ‘Robust Nonreductive Materialism.’ Journal of Philosophy 99: 499–531.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk 2011. Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Carpinell, Joaquín, Baldoví, Rosa, Dolores de Fez, M. and Castro, José. 1998. ‘Color Memory Matching: Time Effect and Other Factors.’ Color Research and Application 23(4): 234–47.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1979. ‘The Problem of the Essential Indexical.’ Noûs 13: 3–21.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 2001. Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness. The 1999 Jean Nicod Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Ben. 2014. ‘Indirect Representation and the Self-Representational Theory of Consciousness.’ Philosophical Studies 167(2): 273–90.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. 2004. ‘The Phenomenology of Cognition, Or, What Is It Like to Think That P?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69: 1–36.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. 2009. ‘Intentional Psychologism.’ Philosophical Studies 146: 117–38.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. 2011. ‘Introspection, Phenomenality and the Availability of Intentional Content.’ In Montague, M. and Bayne, T. (eds.) Cognitive Phenomenology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 141–93.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. 2013. ‘Indexical Thought.’ In Kriegel, U. (ed.) Phenomenal Intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 49–70.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. 2016. ‘Conscious Belief.’ Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia 7, Symposium on Tim Crane’s Aspects of Psychologism: 121–26.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. In press. The Quality of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poland, Jeffrey. 1994. Physicalism: The Philosophical Foundations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Polger, Thomas W. 2011. ‘Are Sensations Still Brain Processes?’ Philosophical Psychology 24: 1–21.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1973. ‘Meaning and Reference.’ Journal of Philosophy 70: 699–711.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”.’ In Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 215–71.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2007. Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rabin, G. O. 2011. ‘Conceptual Mastery and the Knowledge Argument.’ Philosophical Studies 154: 125–47.Google Scholar
Rabin, G. O. 2013. ‘Mind, Modality, and Meaning: Toward a Rationalist Physicalism.’ PhD thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Raffman, Diana. 1995. ‘On the Persistence of Phenomenology.’ In Metzinger, Thomas (ed.) Conscious Experience. Exeter: Imprint Academic:. 293–308.Google Scholar
Raffman, Diana. 2011. ‘Vagueness and Observationity.’ In Ronzitti, Giuseppina (ed.) Vagueness: A Guide. Dordrecht: Springer: 107–21.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1785/1790. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Dublin: Byrne and Milliken.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1997. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense, ed. Brookes, D. R.. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Riehl, A. 1887/1894. The Principles of the Critical Philosophy: Introduction to the Theory of Science and Metaphysics. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Robinson, Howard. 1982. Matter and Sense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Howard. 2008. ‘Why Frank Should Not Have Jilted Mary.’ In Wright, E. (ed.) The Case for Qualia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 223–45.Google Scholar
Robinson, Howard. 2016. From the Knowledge Argument to Mental Substance: Resurrecting the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 2002. ‘Jackson’s Apostasy.’ Philosophical Studies 111: 277–93.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 2007. ‘Evolution and Epiphenomenalism.’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 14: 27–42.Google Scholar
Roelofs, L. 2015. ‘Combining Minds: A Defence of the Possibility of Experiential Combination.’ PhD thesis, University of Toronto. https://philpapers.org/archive/ROECMA-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Roelofs, L. 2016. ‘The Unity of Consciousness, within Subjects and between Subjects.’ Philosophical Studies 173(12): 3199–221.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.’ In Hale, B. and Hoffmann, A. (eds.) Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 109–36.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G. 2004. A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 1983. ‘Reductionism and Knowledge.’ In Cauman, Leigh S., Levi, Isaac, Parsons, Charles and Schwartz, Robert (eds.) How Many Questions? Indianapolis: Hackett: 276–300.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 1991. ‘The Independence of Consciousness and Sensory Quality.’ Philosophical Issues 1: 15–36.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 1999. ‘The Colors and Shapes of Visual Experiences.’ In Fisette, Denis (ed.) Consciousness and Intentionality: Models and Modalities of Attribution. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 95–118.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2001. ‘Color, Mental Location, and the Visual Field.’ Consciousness and Cognition 9(4): 85–93.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2004. ‘Varieties of Higher-Order Theory.’ In Gennaro, Rocco J. (ed.) Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 19–44.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2005. Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2010. ‘How to Think about Mental Qualities.’ Philosophical Issues: Philosophy of Mind 20: 368–93.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2011. ‘Exaggerated Reports: Rely to Block.’ Analysis 71(3): 431–7.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. 2015. ‘Quality Spaces and Sensory Modalities.’ In Coates, Paul and Coleman, Sam (eds.) The Nature of Phenomenal Qualities: Sense, Perception, and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 33–65.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David. In press. ‘Seeming to Seem.’ In Huebner, Bryce (ed.) The Philosophy of Daniel Dennett. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Runge, P. O. 1810. Die Farben-Kugel, oder Construction des Verhaeltnisses aller Farben zueinander. Hamburg: Perthe.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1914. Our Knowledge of the External World. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1927a. The Analysis of Matter. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1927b/1995. An Outline of Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1928/1978. ‘Letter to Max Newman.’ In Bertrand Russell: Autobiography. London: George Allen & Unwin: 413–14.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1945. History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1956. ‘Mind and Matter.’ In Portraits from Memory and Other Essays. London: Allen & Unwin: 145–65.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1959. My Philosophical Development. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1961. Basic Writings, 1903–1959. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sacks, Oliver. 2003. ‘The Mind’s Eye: What the Blind See.’ New Yorker. July 28, 48–59.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, M. and Tye, M. 2011. ‘An Originalist Theory of Concepts.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85: 101–24.Google Scholar
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1940/2010. The Imaginary, trans. Jonathan Webber. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2009. ‘On What Grounds What.’ In Chalmers, D., Manley, D. and Wasserman, R. (eds.) Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 347–83.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2010. ‘The Least Discerning and Most Promiscuous Truthmaker.’ Philosophical Quarterly 9: 307–24.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2017. ‘The Ground between the Gaps.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 17(11): 1–26.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. 2017. ‘Does the Mathematical Nature of Physics Undermine Physicalism?’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 24(9–10): 7–39.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. 1956/1967. Mind and Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schroer, R. 2010. ‘What’s the Beef? Phenomenal Concepts as Both Demonstrative and Substantial.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88: 505–22.Google Scholar
Scott, Ryan B. and Dienes., Zoltán 2010. ‘Knowledge Applied to New Domains: The Unconscious Succeeds Where the Conscious Fails.’ Consciousness and Cognition 19(1): 391–8.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1980. ‘Minds, Brains, and Programs.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–57.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, R. W. 1922. ‘The Double-Knowledge Approach to the Mind-Body Problem.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 23: 55–70.Google Scholar
Shani, I. 2015. ‘Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience.’ Philosophical Papers 44(3): 389–437.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Sydney. 1980. ‘Causality and Properties.’ In van Inwagen, P. (ed.) Time and Cause: Essays Presented to Richard Taylor. Dordrecht: Reidel: 109–38.Google Scholar
Sider, T. 2012. Writing the Book of the World: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skiles, A. 2015. ‘Against Grounding Necessitarianism.’ Erkenntnis 80(4): 717–75.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. 1959. ‘Sensations and Brain Processes.’ Philosophical Review 68: 141–56.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2009. ‘Parsimony Arguments in Science and Philosophy: A Test Case for Naturalism.’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 83: 117–55.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2015. Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest. 2003. ‘Privileged Access.’ In Smith, Quentin and Jokic, Aleksandar (eds.) Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 273–94.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. 2010. ‘On the What-It-Is-Like-Ness of Experience.’ Southern Journal of Philosophy 48(1): 8–27.Google Scholar
Spelke, Elizabeth S., Phillips, Ann and Woodward, Amanda L. 1995. ‘Infants’ Knowledge of Object Motion and Human Action’. In Sperber, Dan, Premack, David and Premack, Ann James (eds.) Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 44–78.Google Scholar
Spurrett, D. and Papineau, D. 1999. ‘A Note on the Completeness of “Physics”.’ Analysis 59: 25–9.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason and Williamson., Timothy 2001. ‘Knowing How.’ Journal of Philosophy 98(8): 411–44.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason and Williamson., Timothy In press. ‘Skill.’ Noûs. Advance online version at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/nous.12144/full.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2001. ‘Two Conceptions of the Physical.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62(2): 253–81.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2005. ‘Physicalism and Phenomenal Concepts.’ Mind and Language 20: 469–94.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2006. Ignorance and Imagination: The Epistemic Origin of the Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2010. Physicalism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2015a. ‘Physicalism.’ In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edn). https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/entries/physicalism/.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2015b. ‘Russellian Monism or Nagelian Monism?’ In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (eds.) Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press: 324–45.Google Scholar
Stoljar, Daniel. 2016. ‘The Semantics of “What It’s Like” and the Nature of Consciousness.’ Mind 125(500): 1161–98.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 1987. ‘Realism and Causation.’ Philosophical Quarterly 37(148): 253–77.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 1989. ‘Red and “Red”.’ Synthese 78(2): 193–232.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 1994. Mental Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2003. ‘Real Materialism.’ Antony, In Louise M. (ed.) Chomsky and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell: 49–88.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2004. ‘Real Intentionality.’ Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 287–313.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2006/2008. ‘Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.’ In Real Materialism and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 53–74.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2008a. ‘The Identity of the Categorical and the Dispositional.’ Analysis 68(300): 271–82.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2008b. ‘Mental Ballistics: The Involuntariness of Spontaneity.’ In Real Materialism and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 233–54.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2015. ‘Real Direct Realism.’ In Coates, P. and Coleman, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Qualities: Sense, Perception, and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 214–56.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2018. ‘The Silliest Claim.’ In G. Strawson Things That Bother Me. New York: New York Review Books: 130–153.Google Scholar
Stubenberg, L. 2016. ‘Neutral Monism.’ In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/.Google Scholar
Sündström, Per. 2011. ‘Phenomenal Concepts.’ Philosophy Compass 6(4): 267–81.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. H. 2013. ‘Physicalism and Phenomenal Concepts: Bringing Ontology and Philosophy of Mind Together.’ Philosophia 41: 1283–97.Google Scholar
Tester, Steven. 2012. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: Philosophical Writings. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Tidman, Paul. 1994. ‘Conceivability as a Test for Possibility.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 31: 297–309.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael. 1977. ‘The Nature of Laws.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7(4): 667–98.Google Scholar
Trogdon, K. 2013a. ‘An Introduction to Grounding.’ In Hoeltje, M, Schenieder, B and Steinberg, A. (eds.) Varieties of Dependence, Basic Philosophical Concepts. Munich: Philosophia Verlag: 97–122.Google Scholar
Trogdon, K. 2013b. ‘Grounding: Necessary or Contingent?’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94(4): 465–85.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 1995. Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2000. Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2005. ‘In Defense of Representationalism: Reply to Commentaries.’ In Aydede, Murat (ed.) Pain: New Essays on Its Nature and the Methodology of Its Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 163–76.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2009. Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2011. ‘Knowing What It Is Like.’ In Bengson, J. and Moffett, M. (eds.) Knowing How: Essays on Knowledge, Mind, and Action. New York: Oxford University Press: 300–13.Google Scholar
Unger, P. 1968. ‘An Analysis of Factual Knowledge.’ Journal of Philosophy 65(6): 157–70.Google Scholar
Unger, P. 1998. ‘The Mystery of the Physical and the Matter of Qualities.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 22(1): 75–99.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James. 1985. ‘Three Versions of the Bundle Theory.’ Philosophical Studies 47: 95–107Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James. 1999. Problems from Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Gulick, R. 2004. ‘So Many Ways of Saying No to Mary.’ In Ludlow, P., Nagasawa, Y. and Stoljar, D. (eds.) There’s Something about Mary: Essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 365–406.Google Scholar
Veillet, B. 2012. ‘In Defense of Phenomenal Concepts.’ Philosophical Papers 41: 97–127.Google Scholar
Veillet, B. 2015. ‘The Cognitive Significance of Phenomenal Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies 172: 2955–74.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1972. Res Cogitans: An Essay in Rational Psychology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wartenberg, T. E. 2006. ‘Beyond Mere Illustration: How Film Can Be Philosophy.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64(1), Special Issue: Thinking through Cinema: Film as Philosophy: 19–32.Google Scholar
Watkins, Michael. 1989. ‘The Knowledge Argument against the Knowledge Argument.’ Analysis 49: 158–60.Google Scholar
White, S. L. 2007 . ‘Property Dualism, Phenomenal Concepts, and the Semantic Premise.’ In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) Phenomenal Knowledge and Phenomenal Concepts: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 210–48.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1978. Descartes. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jessica M. 2006. ‘On Characterizing the Physical.’ Philosophical Studies 131(1): 61–99.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. 1992. ‘Mental Causation.’ Philosophical Review 101: 245–80.Google Scholar
Young, Benjamin D., Keller, Andreas and Rosenthal., David 2014. ‘Quality-Space Theory in Olfaction.’ Frontiers in Psychology 5(1). http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00001/full.Google Scholar
Zahavi, D. 2017. ‘Brain, Mind, World: Predictive Coding, Neo-Kantianism, and Transcendental Idealism.’ Husserl Studies 34(1): 47–61. doi: 10.1007/s10743-017-9218-zGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Sam Coleman, University of Hertfordshire
  • Book: The Knowledge Argument
  • Online publication: 09 September 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316494134.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Sam Coleman, University of Hertfordshire
  • Book: The Knowledge Argument
  • Online publication: 09 September 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316494134.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Sam Coleman, University of Hertfordshire
  • Book: The Knowledge Argument
  • Online publication: 09 September 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316494134.015
Available formats
×