William Seager

This chapter’s solution to the combination problem is inspired by fusion accounts of emergence and builds upon ideas from William James and Alfred N. Whitehead. The chapter starts out from a two-fold critique of the classical understanding of combination. It argues that we are indeed mistaken in thinking that combination is always in the “mechanical mode of causal composition.” It uses quantum mechanics, as well as certain properties of black holes, to show that there are very good examples of combination that transcend this mechanical mode. The answer disentangles physical from mental combination. Fusion is a psychological process. It is not the fusion of physical states into conscious states, but rather the fusion of mental states into new, more integrated mental states.

_Metaphysics of Consciousness_ opens with a development of the physicalist outlook that denies the need for any explanation of the mental. This "inexplicability" is demonstrated not to be sufficient as refutation of physicalism. However, the inescapable particularity of modes of consciousness appears to overpower this minimal physicalism. This book proposes that such an inference requires either a wholly new conception of how consciousness is physical or a deep and disturbing new kind of physical inexplicability.

Hans Herzberger, now retired and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, had a major influence on a generation of philosophers. In his honor and in appreciation of his impressive scholarship and personal influence, this volume presents essays from philosophers such as Isaac Levi, Calvin Normore, Jamie Tappenden, Alasdair Urquhart, Achille Varzi, and Steven Yablo. Each essay is original and appears here for the first time. They are fresh, illuminating, and cover an eclectic range of topics, including rational choice theory, Frege scholarship and interpretation, the nature of truth, the inexpressible and the unknowable, and fundamental ontology – all topics of central importance in philosophy and all dear to the heart of Hans Herzberger.

The most remarkable fact about the universe is that certain parts of it are conscious. Somehow nature has managed to pull the rabbit of experience out of a hat made of mere matter. Making its own contribution to the current, lively debate about the nature of consciousness, _Theories of Consciousness_ introduces variety of approaches to consciousness and explores to what extent scientific understanding of consciousness is possible. Including discussion of key figures, such as Descartes, Foder, Dennett and Chalmers, the book covers identity theories, representational theories, intentionality, externalism, and the new information-based theories.

_Metaphysics of Consciousness_ opens with a development of the physicalist outlook that denies the need for any explanation of the mental. This "inexplicability" is demonstrated not to be sufficient as refutation of physicalism. However, the inescapable particularity of modes of consciousness appears to overpower this minimal physicalism. This book proposes that such an inference requires either a wholly new conception of how consciousness is physical or a deep and disturbing new kind of physical inexplicability.

_Metaphysics of Consciousness_ opens with a development of the physicalist outlook that denies the need for any explanation of the mental. This "inexplicability" is demonstrated not to be sufficient as refutation of physicalism. However, the inescapable particularity of modes of consciousness appears to overpower this minimal physicalism. This book proposes that such an inference requires either a wholly new conception of how consciousness is physical or a deep and disturbing new kind of physical inexplicability.

David Bohm is famous for inventing a ‘hidden variables’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which particles possess definite positions and momenta, but nonetheless preserve distinctively quantum phenomena perfectly in line with orthodox quantum mechanics. Bohm achieved this by interpreting the quantum wave function as a kind of universal ‘guidance wave’. But his particulate model does not represent the lesson which Bohm thought quantum mechanics was trying to teach us. Bohm had a much more radical metaphysical vision in which the world was, in some difficult to understand sense, an undivided whole. In this paper, I explore a compelling confluence of thought between William James and David Bohm. Arriving from very different starting points and proceeding in very different ways, they share a vision of a unitary world, undivided and ‘beyond’ all the categories of thought and perception. This vision is intrinsically interesting, not least because of the light it shines on the problem of consciousness. It both addresses and presents an entirely novel solution to the famous ‘hard problem of consciousness’.

Despite recent strides made in neuroscience and psychology that have deepened understanding of the brain, the existence and nature of consciousness remains one of the greatest philosophical and scientific puzzles. The second edition of _Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment_, provides a fresh and up to date introduction to a variety of approaches to consciousness and contributes to the current lively debate about the nature of consciousness and whether a scientific understanding of it is possible. After addressing Descartes, the founder of the modern problem of consciousness, William Seager examines the most important theories of consciousness in turn: identity theories and the generation problem HOT Theory and reductionism about consciousness Daniel Dennett's theories of consciousness representational theories of consciousness conscious intentionality pansychism. The second edition of _Theories of Consciousness_ expands and revises its treatment of these topics and adds several new ones, including a new chapter on reflexive consciousness and a significant new section on emergence and consciousness. Extensive use of case studies is made throughout the book, and additional features such as chapter summaries, annotated further reading and a glossary make this an indispensable introduction to those teaching philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology. It will also be an excellent resource for those in related fields such as cognitive science.

Imagine the day when physics is complete. A theory is in place which unifies all the forces of nature in one self-consistent and empirically verified set of absolutely basic principles. There are some who see this day as perhaps not too distant (e.g. Hawking 1988, Weinberg 1992, Horgan 1996). Of course, the mere possession of this _theory_ of everything will not give us the ability to provide a complete _explanation_ of everything: every event, process, occurrence and structure. Most things will be too remote from the basic theory to admit of explanation in its terms; even relatively small and simple systems will be far too complex to be intelligibly described in the final theory

The ability to observe is the ability to reliably detect, but that is not all observation is. A thermometer reliably detects temperature yet does not observe the temperature, whereas I do, even though in terms of reliability I cannot match the thermometer. An observation is detection accompanied by active classification and, typically, the subsequent formation of opinion. Even when we say of an animal that it can see something we mean more than that it reliably detects things of a certain sort but also that it deals with such things as objects, gauging their usefulness or lack thereof in relation to its interests and to other aspects of the world. This crucial addendum to the notion of observation can be enshrined in slogan: observers are potential believers. This marks the difference between mere detecting mechanisms and observers.The contemporary scientific anti-realism of one such as van Fraassen, which is developed in detail under the label of “constructive empiricism” in van Fraassen (1980), can be characterized in terms of detecting mechanisms.

The crudest formulation of physicalism is simply the claim that everything is physical, and perhaps that is all physicalism ought to imply. But in fact a large number of distinct versions of physicalism are currently in play, with very different commitments and implications. There is no agreement about the detailed formulation of the doctrine, even though a majority of philosophers would claim to be physicalists, and a vast majority of them are physicalists of one sort or another. There are several reasons for this lack of agreement: deep and imponderable questions about realism and the legitimacy of a narrowly defined notion of reality, questions about the scope of the term “physical,” issues about explanation and reduction, and worries about the proper range of physicalism, particularly with respect to so‐called abstract objects such as numbers, sets, or properties. And while the traditional challenge of psychological dualism poses a live threat only to a few iconoclasts, the project of specifying a physicalism which plausibly integrates mind into the physical world remains unfinished, despite the huge number and diversity of attempts.

Modern representationalism about consciousness (MR) is often conflated with classical representationalism (CR). This chapter discusses CR first in order to highlight the contrast between old and new representationalism and bring out some of the strengths of the latter. It discerns three key projects related to MR. The first is that of determining whether its defining claim, the exhaustion thesis, is true. The second is that of explicating the fundamental difference between phenomenal and nonphenomenal states. The third project is that of developing a theory of representation strong and stable enough to support MR. MR naturally bifurcates into externalist and internalist versions, depending upon the favored theory of mental representation. Many proponents of MR endorse the externalist view. MR is compatible with a range of theories of introspection. Introspection requires a special and sophisticated way of thinking about conscious experience.

Although one of the most important and prolific thinkers of all time, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) spent his life as a courtier, wasting time in diplomatic business or preparing documents to shore up claims of lineage or territory for his patrons. He also spent a good deal of time on practical matters of engineering, such as his dreams of a system of windmills that would have ameliorated the chronic flooding of the Harz silver mines, and on his visionary mechanical calculators. Most of his working life was spent in Hannover, pursuing philosophy when he could spare the time from his professional activities, but nonetheless maintaining an astonishing pace of philosophical, mathematical, and scientific writing (of which very little was published in his own lifetime), as well as a relentless correspondence with all the important intellectual figures of his day. When Leibniz died in 1716, his funeral was scandalously insignificant, but time's revenge has been sweet.

In the mid‐part of the twentieth century, the union of youthful science and the ancient philosophical dream of metaphysical completion begot a visionary doctrine known as the unity of science (see unity of science). This view of the relationship among scientific theories maintained that any theory aspiring to be truly “scientific” must fit into a hierarchy in which every theory was reducible to the theory immediately below it, save for the foundational theory of physics. Reduction would be accomplished by establishing relations of coextension between the predicates of the reduced theory, T1, and the reducing theory, T2, sufficient to allow the mathematical deduction of the laws of T1 expressed entirely in terms drawn from T2 (see reductionism). The classic example is the reduction of phenomenological to statistical thermodynamics. The example suffers from the apparently serious defects of not meeting the conditions laid down by the unity of science and of being pretty much unique in achieving the degree of approximation to these conditions which it enjoys. It has become clear in the later stages of the century that despite the rich and complex interrelationships that prevail among scientific theories, there is little or no prospect of even roughly fulfilling the dream of the grand unification of all theories into a complete hierarchy of reduction. (One philosopher of science, Ian Hacking, bluntly assesses unity of science to be just another of philosophy's “idle pipedreams.”)

We must begin with the admission that the term “metaphysics” does not have a very precise or agreed upon meaning (no more does “science”). In current philosophy of science, “metaphysics” is, by and large, a pejorative term applied to whatever is regarded as illicitly nonempirical. Traditionally, metaphysics is regarded as the study of what lies behind the world of appearance ‐ perhaps constitutes that world, but is itself the only true reality. Obviously, a great many people would regard science, or at least the more basic sciences such as physics, chemistry, and perhaps astronomy, as fitting this description. Consider, for instance, Eddington's famous description of the scientific as opposed to the “commonsense” table.