D. Gene Witmer

Rae Langton and David Lewis have proposed an account of “intrinsic property” that makes use of two notions: being independent of accompaniment and being natural. We find the appeal to the first of these promising; the second notion, however, we find mystifying. In this paper we argue that the appeal to naturalness is not acceptable and offer an alternative definition of intrinsicality. The alternative definition makes crucial use of a notion commonly used by philosophers, namely, the notion of one property being had in virtue of another property. We defend our account against three arguments for thinking that this “in virtue of” notion is unacceptable in this context. We also take a look at a variety of cases in which the definition might be applied and defend it against potential counterexamples. The upshot, we think, is a modest but adequate account of what we understand by “intrinsic property.”

In his Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (2017) Philip Goff defends his anti-physicalist argument against what he calls the "Dual Carving" objection—the idea that two representations of the very same fact could both be conceptually independent and "transparent," that is, revealing of the essences of the entities in question. His defense invokes a thesis he calls "Minimal Rationalism." I explore exactly how Minimal Rationalism is supposed to turn aside the objection and argue that the formulation of Minimal Rationalism on offer is ambiguous between stronger and weaker readings. Goff needs the stronger reading to use it in defense of his argument, but only the weaker reading is warranted by the considerations he brings to bear in favor of his rationalism. His minimal rationalism is, in sum, insufficiently minimal. The upshot is not only that Goff is deprived of a way of turning back an important objection to his case against physicalism; we also gain a better sense of what kind of rationalist thesis is properly invoked in metaphysics.

What has become known asthe blockers problemis an alleged difficulty facing attempts to formulate physicalism as a supervenience thesis. A blocker is an entity, itself contrary to physicalism, with the power to disrupt an otherwise necessary connection between physical and nonphysical conditions. I argue that there is no distinct blockers problem. Insofar as a problem can be identified, it turns out to be just a rather baroque version of a distinct and familiar objection to supervenience formulations and to be of no independent interest. Work on the formulation of physicalism can thus proceed without worrying about blockers.

In his book Intuition, Elijah Chudnoff develops an account of how we might, by having intuitions, be made aware of abstract objects. While the conditions under which we enjoy such awareness are, on his account, happily free of objectionable metaphysics or dubious mechanisms, it is not clear that the conditions bear the epistemic weight they need to carry. To flesh out this worry, I develop an example that is parallel in all relevant respects to cases of intuitive awareness as described by Chudnoff but in which the subject lacks awareness. This paper is a descendant of remarks delivered at the 2014 conference of the Florida Philosophical Association during a book symposium on Elijah Chudnoff’s Intuition.

Contemporary materialism labors under two serious difficulties: the problem of formulation and the problem of justification. It remains unclear just what physicalism says or why one should believe it. I propose an explicit formulation and provide a sustained argument for that specific thesis. The overall thesis I defend may be roughly stated thus: every nonphysical particular and lawful fact in the actual world is to be explained by reference to the purely physical in such a way as to imply that they are nothing over and above the physical facts, where the purely physical facts include the particular physical facts, the laws of physics, and the completeness of physics. This explanatory claim implies two dialectically key theses which may be roughly expressed as the following. First, any possible world physically indiscernible from the actual one which abides by the laws of physics is indiscernible from the actual one in all respects. Second, any actual law of nature is entailed by the laws of physics, their completeness, and actual particular matters of physical fact. This is a very strict sort of physicalism, one that probably deserves the name "reductionism." ;The core argument turns on the notion of a physically detectable property, that is, a property such that whether it is instantiated can make a difference to physical effects, where this "making a difference" is a causal notion. Given the completeness of physics--the claim, roughly, that every physical event has a sufficient physical cause--all physically detectable properties are plausibly derivative on purely physical properties and laws in such a way as to imply the physicalist thesis described above. I argue that being physically detectable in the relevant way is linked to empirical knowability so that any property instance we could be justified in positing is physically detectable and hence swept up in these considerations. The detectability considerations allied with the completeness of physics provides both the supervenience thesis about particular facts and the law entailment thesis. Together, these make the overarching explanatory claim--that the nonphysical realm is nothing over and above the physical--extremely plausible

Recent work by Jaegwon Kim and others suggest that functionalism leaves mental properties causally inefficacious in some sense. I examine three lines of argument for this conclusion. The first appeals to Occam's Razor; the second appeals to a ban on overdetermination; and the third charges that the kind of response I favor to these arguments forces me to give up “the homogeneity of mental and physical causation”. I show how each argument fails. While I concede that a positive theory of mental causation is desirable, there is no reason to think that functionalism renders such a theory unattainable.

Presidential Address for the 2011 meeting of the Florida Philosophical Association. A somewhat playful but also serious meditation on ways in which the philosophical impulse can be understood as an urge to demystify or render "boring." Topics include psychological peculiarities of philosophers, reflections on methods for teaching students at an introductory level, the contrast between science and philosophy, the sense in which philosophy may or may not begin in "wonder," and why we should value the process of taking the magic out of everything, ending with the declaration that it’s good to make everything boring—at least, in the specific sense here delineated.

What has come to be known as “a priori physicalism” is the thesis, roughly, that the non-physical truths in the actual world can be deduced a priori from a complete physical description of the actual world. To many contemporary philosophers, a priori physicalism seems extremely implausible. In this paper I distinguish two kinds of a priori physicalism. One sort – strict a priori physicalism – I reject as both unmotivated and implausible. The other sort – liberal a priori physicalism – I argue is both motivated and plausible. This variety of a priori physicalism insists that the necessitation of non-physical truths by the physical facts must be underwritten in a certain fashion by a priori knowledge, but the a priori knowledge need not amount to a simple deduction of the non-physical truths from a complete physical description of the world. Further, this sort of liberal a priori physicalism has the advantage that it offers hope for a genuinely satisfying account of how the physical facts manage to necessitate the facts about phenomenal consciousness – thereby in effect solving the “hard problem” of consciousness. The first half of the paper sets out the motivation for liberal a priori physicalism and its superiority to the strict version; the second half presents one strategy available to the liberal a priori physicalist for showing how consciousness can be accommodated in a purely physical world

In his 'The Disorder of Things' John Dupré presents an objection to reductionism which I call the 'anti-essentialist objection': it is that reductionism requires essentialism, and essentialism is false. I unpack the objection and assess its cogency. Once the objection is clearly in view, it is likely to appeal to those who think conceptual analysis a bankrupt project. I offer on behalf of the reductionist two strategies for responding, one which seeks to rehabilitate conceptual analysis and one (more concessive) which avoids commitment to any such analysis

How should the “physical” in “physicalism” be understood? I here set out systematic criteria of adequacy, propose an account, and show how the account meets those criteria. The criteria of adequacy focus on the idea of rational management: to vindicate philosophical practice, the account must make it plausible that we can assess various questions about physicalism. The account on offer is dubbed the “Ideal Naturalist Physics” account, according to which the physical is that which appears in an ideal theory that both meets the explanatory goals of physics and is naturalist in a sense to be explained. The combination of these two provides a satisfying account of the physical that meets the criteria of adequacy and can be used to predict puzzle cases as well.