Simone Gozzano

The major objection for including mental properties, and laws, within the domain of scientific essentialism concerns phenomenal properties, and such an objection is often raised via the intuition that zombies are conceivable. However, if these properties can be individuated in terms of roles and establish nomological relations, zombies are not possible because they would be nomologically identical to us but property different, an independence that essentialism denies. If there are not nomological relations, the essentialist denies that there are phenomenal properties, and we are zombie. But it seems there are phenomenal properties, so this option too should be discarded. The only option left is that phenomenal properties are categorical properties. However, I argue that this option is not viable and that these properties are better construed as dispositions, which gives physicalism a better chance to be defensible.

Quale sia la natura della coscienza è uno dei problemi più analizzati e discussi sia nella ricerca filosofica sia in quella scientifica. Ogni mese nel mondo vengono pubblicati diversi libri dedicati a questo argomento, e decine di riviste specialistiche ospitano articoli e saggi volti a chiarirne le varie componenti; sotto una tale pressione sono nate alcune riviste scientifiche dedicate esclusivamente all'argomento. A questo fiorire di ricerche corrisponde una quantità altrettanto elevata di approcci. Una rivista come il Journal of consciousness studies, ad esempio, annovera contributi di filosofi e neurobiologi, scienziati cognitivi e psicologi gli uni accanto agli altri, a testimoniare proprio la varietà delle questioni e dei metodi di indagine che si addensano attorno ai fenomeni coscienti. Nel libro ho tenuto fede a questa molteplicità, descrivendo le principali teorie filosofiche accanto ai risultati empirici di psicologi e neurologi. Per ragioni di spazio e di taglio generale ho dovuto eliminare molto, e ogni volta penso a quanti autori e correnti di un certo rilievo ho dovuto tralasciare. Lo scopo principale di questo volume, tuttavia, non è quello dell'esaustività, quanto piuttosto di fornire un quadro per chi voglia orientarsi nel problema della coscienza, purché sia attrezzato di una buona dose di curiosità e di un po' di tenacia per poter affrontare qualche dettaglio più tecnico; non è dunque una summa enciclopedica di quel che si studia oggi sotto l'etichetta “coscienza”. Con questo spirito ho descritto, nel primo capitolo, le radici filosofiche del problema della coscienza rifacendomi a molti classici, alcuni dei quali davvero sorprendentemente attuali. Nel capitolo successivo ho analizzato i diversi risultati empirici sui quali si stanno costruendo le teorie più interessanti; il terzo capitolo presenta una serie di teorie filosofiche volte a difendere l'autonomia della coscienza dalle spiegazioni naturalistiche, e il filosofo David Chalmers fa la parte del campione di questo schieramento. L'ultimo capitolo propone invece le teorie più marcatamente naturalistiche, ed è il filosofo Daniel Dennett a portare il vessillo del rappresentante. I quattro capitoli che compongono il libro, dunque, alternano l'approccio filosofico, dedito a chiarire i presupposti concettuali, e quello naturalistico ed empirico, basato sulle tecniche sperimentali, per rendere conto proprio della varietà del problema coscienza, e di come esso rappresenti forse l'ultima frontiera con la quale noi esseri umani proviamo a ritagliarci un posto speciale tra ciò che ci circonda. È sufficiente volgersi alla storia della scienza per constatare le radici di una simile esigenza. Galileo Galilei ha spostato il nostro pianeta dal centro del cosmo ad una marginale periferia; Charles Darwin ci ha inserito, esseri naturali ed emotivi, nel mondo biologico al pari di ogni altra specie; Alan Turing, infine, ha mostrato che molta della nostra cognizione può essere trattata con metodi computazionali. La coscienza sembra l'ultimo baluardo che separa, categorialmente se non ontologicamente, la nostra specie da tutto il resto. L'eventualità di tradurla in termini neurobiologici è da molti considerata una chimera, e la liceità di una simile ipotesi è posta sotto scrutinio per evidenziarne i presupposti filosofici. Questo testo dovrebbe aiutare a capire quali sono gli snodi del problema e chi ha buone prospettive di cogliere nel segno.

In this paper I first try to clarify the essential features of tropes and then I use the resulting analysis to cope with the problem of mental causation. As to the first step, I argue that tropes, beside being essentially particular and abstract, are simple, where such a simplicity can be considered either from a phenomenal point of view or from a structural point of view. Once this feature is spelled out, the role tropes may play in solving the problem of mental causation is evaluated. It is argued that no solution based on the determinable/determinate relation is viable without begging the question as regards the individuating conditions of the related properties. Next, it is shown that Robb’s solution, much in the spirit of Davidson’s anomalous monism, entails abandoning the assumption that tropes are essentially simple, a consequence that I find not acceptable. My conclusion is that these entities are of no help in solving the problem of mental causation, and that a universalist approach should be preferred.

In this essay I shall argue that the crucial assumptions of Kripke's argument, i.e. the collapse of the appearance/reality distinction in the case of phenomenal states and the idea of a qualitatively identical epistemic situation, imply an objective principle of identity for mental-state types. This principle, I shall argue, rather than being at odds with physicalism, is actually compatible with both the type-identity theory of the mind and Kripke's semantics and metaphysics. Finally, I shall sketch a version of the type-identity theory.

The aim of this paper is to clarify the role of the distinction between belief and opinion in the light of Dennett's intentional stance. In particular, I consider whether the distinction could be used for a defence of the stance from various criticisms. I will then apply the distinction to the so-called `paradoxes of irrationality'. In this context I will propose that we should avoid the postulation of `boundaries' or `gaps' within the mind, and will attempt to show that a useful treatment of the paradoxes can be obtained by revising the rationality assumption

The type identity theory, according to which types of mental state are identical to types of physical state, fell out of favour for some years but is now being considered with renewed interest. Many philosophers are critically re-examining the arguments which were marshalled against it, finding in the type identity theory both resources to strengthen a comprehensive, physicalistic metaphysics and a useful tool in understanding the relationship between developments in psychology and new results in neuroscience. This volume brings together leading philosophers of mind, whose essays challenge in new ways the standard objections to type identity theory, such as the multiple realizability objection and the modal argument. Other essays show how cognitive science and neuroscience are lending new support to type identity theory and still others provide, extend and improve traditional arguments concerning the theory's explanatory power.

In recent times, Evans’ idea that mental states could have non-conceptual contents has been attacked. McDowell (Mind and World, 1994) and Brewer (Perception and reason, 1999) have both argued that that notion does not have any epistemological role because notions such as justification or evidential support, that might relate mental contents to each other, must be framed in conceptual terms. On his side, Brewer has argued that instead of non-conceptual content we should consider demonstrative concepts that have the same fine grainess of non-conceptual contents while having conceptual structure. In what follows I will argue that, first, that the notion of demonstrative concept is not viable and, second, that there is an epistemological role for non-conceptual content.

In this paper I submit that the “Chinese room” argument rests on the assumption that understanding a sentence necessarily implies being conscious of its content. However, this assumption can be challenged by showing that two notions of consciousness come into play, one to be found in AI, the other in Searle’s argument, and that the former is an essential condition for the notion used by Searle. If Searle discards the first, he not only has trouble explaining how we can learn a language but finds the validity of his own argument in jeopardy

In this paper I submit that the “Chinese room” argument rests on the assumption that understanding a sentence necessarily implies being conscious of its content. However, this assumption can be challenged by showing that two notions of consciousness come into play, one to be found in AI, the other in Searle’s argument, and that the former is an essential condition for the notion used by Searle. If Searle discards the first, he not only has trouble explaining how we can learn a language but finds the validity of his own argument in jeopardy.

It is customarily assumed that propositional attitudes present two independent components: a propositional component and a psychological component, in the form of an attitude. These two components are caught by means of two different methods: propositions by some model theoretic theory, psychological attitudes by making appeal to their functional or psychological role. Some authors have seek a convergence by individuating propositions by Functional role semantics. In this paper I show that when it comes to emotional attitudes with propositional content, either the independence of proposition and attitude collapses or functional role semantics brings to unstable individuation conditions for propositions. Some consequences of these two outcomes are considered