David Papineau

This paper aims to build a bridge between two areas of philosophical research, the structure of kinds and metaphysical modality. Our central thesis is that kinds typically involve super-explanatory properties, and that these properties are therefore metaphysically essential to natural kinds. Philosophers of science who work on kinds tend to emphasize their complexity, and are generally resistant to any suggestion that they have “essences”. The complexities are real enough, but they should not be allowed to obscure the way that kinds are typically unified by certain core properties. We shall show how this unifying role offers a natural account of why certain properties are metaphysically essential to kinds.

I am glad that David Chalmers has now come round to the view that explaining the 'problem intuitions' about consciousness is the key to a satisfactory philosophical account of the topic. I find it surprising, however, given his previous writings, that Chalmers does not simply attribute these intuitions to the conceptual gap between physical and phenomenal facts. Still, it is good that he doesn't, given that this was always a highly implausible account of the problem intuitions. Unfortunately, later in his paper Chalmers slides back into his misguided previous emphasis on the conceptual gap, in his objections to orthodox a posteriori physicalism. Because of this he fails to appreciate how this orthodox physicalism offers a natural solution to the challenges posed by consciousness.

Muitas ideias diferentes desfilam sob a bandeira do naturalismo filosófico. Entre elas, uma tese sobre método filosófico. A filosofia investiga a realidade do mesmo modo que a ciência. Seus métodos são semelhantes aos métodos científicos, e o conhecimento que ela produz é semelhante ao conhecimento científico. Este “naturalismo metodológico” deve ser distinguido do “naturalismo ontológico”, entendido como uma visão geral sobre os conteúdos da realidade. O naturalismo ontológico sustenta que a realidade envolve nada mais do que as entidades estudadas nas ciências naturais e não contém um reino sobrenatural ou transcendente. Embora os naturalismos ontológico e metodológico reivindiquem uma espécie de afinidade entre filosofia e ciência, as duas doutrinas são amplamente independentes.

Saul Kripke challenges materialists to explain why zombies should seem possible, if they are in fact impossible; and he points out that it is not plausible that this is because terms for conscious states such as “pain” refer by invoking some contingent property of their referents. In response, Papineau argues that the conceivability of zombies is no guide to any kind of possibility, and that those who suppose that it is are committed to the archaic view that direct reference involves some kind of transparent acquaintance.

Even materialists will admit that mind‐brain identity is counterintuitive. Some materialist philosophers think that this intuition is due to the plausibility of the standard antimaterialist arguments, like Jackson's knowledge argument or Kripke's modal argument. Papineau shows that this cannot be right, since these arguments apply equally in cases in which we feel no intuition of distinctness. Instead, he draws on remarks of Thomas Nagel to argue that the intuition of distinctness is due to an “antipathetic fallacy”: we move from the true premise that phenomenal concepts don’t involve conscious feelings to the false conclusion that they don’t refer to them.

This precis explains that _Philosophical naturalism contains three parts. Part I examines arguments for physicalism and maintains I) that all causally relevant special science properties must be realized by physical ones, and II) that all special science laws must reduce to physical ones, apart from the significant category of special laws that result from selection processes. Part II defends a teleological theory of representation and an identity theory of consciousness. Part III defends reliabilism and applies it to inductive scepticism and also defends a fictionalist account of mathematics

This paper is about the nature of conscious sensory properties. My initial thesis is that these properties should not be equated with representational properties. I argue that any such representationalist view is in danger of implying that conscious sensory properties are constituted by relations to propositions or other abstract objects outside space and time; and I add that, even if this implication can be avoided, the broadness of representational properties in any case renders them unsuitable to constitute conscious properties. In place of the representational account, I then defend an equation of conscious sensory properties with intrinsic non‐relational properties of subjects, and I show how this view deals naturally with all the difficulties facing representationalism. I conclude by defending this non‐relational account of conscious experience against arguments from the ‘transparency’ and the ‘intrinsic intentionality’ of experience.

This paper applies a teleosemantic perspective to the question of whether there is genuine representation outside the familiar realm of belief‐desire psychology. I first explain how teleosemantics accounts for the representational powers of beliefs and desires themselves. I then ask whether biological states which are simpler than beliefs and desires can also have representational powers. My conclusion is that such biologically simple states can be ascribed representational contents, but only in a system‐relative way: such states must be ascribed varying contents when viewed as components in different biological systems. I conclude by arguing that ‘the genetic code’ does not even embody this kind of system‐relative representation.