Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:01:56.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zombies, Epiphenomenalism, and Physicalist Theories of Consciousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Andrew Bailey
Andrew Bailey*
Affiliation:
The University of Guelph Guelph, ONN1G 2W1, CANADA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In its recent history, the philosophy of mind has come to resemble an entry into the genre of Hammer horror or pulpy science fiction. These days it is unusual to encounter a major philosophical work on the mind that is not populated with bats, homunculi, swamp-creatures, cruelly imprisoned genius scientists, aliens, cyborgs, other-worldly twins, self-aware Computer programs, Frankenstein-monster-like ‘Blockheads,’ or zombies. The purpose of this paper is to review the role in the philosophy of mind of one of these fantastic thought-experiments — the zombie — and to reassess the implications of zombie arguments, which I will suggest have been widely misinterpreted. I shall argue that zombies, far from being the enemy of materialism, are its friend; and furthermore that zombies militate against the computational model of consciousness and in favour of more biologically-rooted conceptions, and hence that zombie- considerations support a more reductive kind of physicalism about consciousness than has been in vogue in recent years.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 481 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

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

Armstrong, D. 1968. A Materialistic Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Balog, K. 1999. ‘Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem’ Philosophical Review 108 497–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. 1980a. ‘Troubles with Functionalism’ In Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume 1, Block, N, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 268–305.Google Scholar
Block, N. 1980b. ‘Are Absent Qualia Impossible?’ Philosophical Review 89 (1980) 257-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. 1981. ‘Psychologism and Behaviorism’ Philosophical Review 90 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N., Flanagan, O., and Giizeldere, G. 1997. The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Block, N., and Stalnaker, R. 1999. ‘Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap’ Philosophical Review 108 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braddon-Mitchell, D. 2003. ‘Qualia and Analytical Conditionals’ The Journal of Philosophy 100 111-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, A. 2001. ‘Chalmers's Conceivability Argument for Dualism’ Analysis 61187-93.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. 1970. Body and Mind London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2000. Phenomenal Consciousness Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 1993. ‘Self-Ascription Without Qualia: A Case Study’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 35-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 1996. The Conscious Mind New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 1999. ‘Materialism and the Metaphysics of Modality’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 473-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 2002. ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’ In Conceivability and Possibility, Szabo Gendler, T and Hawthorne, J, eds. New York: Oxford University Press. 145–200.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 2003. ‘The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief’ In Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives, Smith, Q and Jokic, A, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 220-72.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.J. 2004. ‘Imagination, Indexicality, and Intensions’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 182-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, A. 1999. ‘Sniffing the Camembert: On the Conceivability of Zombies’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 4–12.Google Scholar
Dietrich, E., and Gillies, A. 2001. ‘Consciousness and the Limits of Our Imagination’ Synthese 126 361-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 2003. ‘How Do You Know You Are Not a Zombie?’ In Privileged Access: Philosophical Accounts of Self-Knowledge, Gertler, B, ed. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. 1–14.Google Scholar
Elitzur, A. 1995. ‘Consciousness Can No More be Ignored’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 353-8.Google Scholar
Flanagan, O. 1991. The Science of the Mind Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O., and Polger, T. 1995. ‘Zombies and the Function of Consciousness’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 312-72.Google Scholar
Gendler, T., and Hawthorne, J, eds. 2002. Conceivability and Possibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giizeldere, G. 1995. ‘Varieties of Zombiehood’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (1995) 326-33.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2002. ‘Advice for Physicalists’ Philosophical Studies 109 17–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, T.H. 1874. ‘On the Hypothesis That Animals Are Automata, And Its History’ Fortnightly Review 16 555-80.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1986. ‘What Mary Didn't Know’ Journal of Philosophy 83 291-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. 1879. ‘Are We Automata?’ Mind 4 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. 1974a. ‘Sentience and Behaviour’ Mind 83 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. 1974b. ‘Zombies v. Materialists’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 48 135-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. 1999. ‘Why There Couldn't Be Zombies’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 73 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. 2003. ‘Zombies’ In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), Zalta, E.N., ed. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/zombies/.Google Scholar
Levine, J. 1998. ‘Conceivability and the Metaphysics of Mind’ Nous 32 449-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. 2001. Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1972. ‘Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications’ In Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology, Volume 1, Block, N, ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 207-15.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. 1987. Consciousness Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, E. 2004. ‘Why Zombies are Inconceivable’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 477-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, T. 1994. ‘Conversations with Zombies’ Journal of Consciousness Studies 1196-200.Google Scholar
Perry, J. 2001. Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polger, T.W. 2000. ‘Zombies Explained’ In Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment, Ross, D, Brook, A, and Thompson, D, eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 259-86.Google Scholar
Popper, K., and Eccles, J 1977. The Self and its Brain New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, S. 1975. ‘Functionalism and Qualia’ Philosophical Studies 27 291–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, S. 1981. ‘Absent Qualia are Impossible.’ Philosophical Review 90 581-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, S. 1999. ‘On David Chalmers's The Conscious Mind.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 439-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2002. ‘What is it Like to be a Zombie?’ In Conceivability and Possibility, Gendler, T and Hawthorne, J, eds. New York: Oxford University Press. 385–400.Google Scholar
Stout, G.F. 1931. Mind and Matter Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. 1993. ‘Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar