2001/03/01 by DANIEL STOLJAR, Daniel Stoljar · 4 citations
Psychology · Arts and Humanities · #Philosophy and Theoretical Science #Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics #Philosophy and History of Science
paper · doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00056.x
The debate over physicalism in philosophy of mind can be seen as concerning an inconsistent tetrad of theses: (1) if physicalism is true, a priori physicalism is true; (2) a priori physicalism is false; (3) if physicalism is false, epiphenomenalism is true; (4) epiphenomenalism is false. This paper argues that one may resolve the debate by distinguishing two conceptions of the physical: on the theory‐based conception , it is plausible that (2) is true and (3) is false; on the object‐based conception , it is plausible that (3) is true and (2) is false. the paper also defends and explores the version of physicalism that results from this strategy.