Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Two Conceivability Arguments Compared

dc.contributor.authorStoljar, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-07T22:50:20Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.date.updated2015-12-07T12:16:43Z
dc.description.abstractThis paper compares and contrasts two conceivability arguments: the zombie argument (ZA) against physicalism, and the perfect actor argument (AA) against behaviourism. I start the paper by assuming that the arguments are of the same kind, and that AA is sound. On the basis of these two assumptions I criticize the most common philosophical suggestions in the literature today about what is wrong with ZA, and what is right in it. I end the paper by suggesting that the comparison between the two arguments makes plausible an epistemic response to ZA according to which the conceivability of a zombie - that is, someone identical to me in all physical respects but different in some phenomenal respect - is being confused with the conceivability of something else, i.e. someone identical to me in physical respects that are epistemically available, but different in some phenomenal respect.
dc.identifier.issn1467-9264
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/26983
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd
dc.sourceProceedings of the Aristotelian Society
dc.titleTwo Conceivability Arguments Compared
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issuePart 1
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage44
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage27
local.contributor.affiliationStoljar, Daniel, College of Arts and Social Sciences, ANU
local.contributor.authoruidStoljar, Daniel, u8711855
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor220314 - Philosophy of Mind (excl. Cognition)
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4193773xPUB48
local.identifier.citationvolume107
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-60949158047
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Stoljar_Two_Conceivability_Arguments_2007.pdf
Size:
363.58 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
abcd