1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 61
Jerry J. Yang
楊景德
A Response to Rosenthal’s Arguments against the Intrinsic View of Consciousness
對羅森陶反意識本有主義論證之回應
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Rosenthal argues that if consciousness is seen as intrinsic, it will appear to be simple and unanalyzable, and therefore not amenable to scientific explanation, which requires a relational structure involving an extrinsic property of the mind. I shall first criticize Rosenthal's argument against intrinsicalism by way of conceptual analysis. I shall then examine three of his arguments against the intrinsic view of consciousness: the argument from the distinction between transitive and intransitive consciousness, the argument from reporting and expressing, and the argument of the individuation of mental states. I suggest that the content of a mental state can be considered to be an information space, which will allow for an explanation of consciousness. My rejection of Rosenthal's position relies on distinguishing two different forms of intrinsicalism: with and without self-representation. We shall find that both versions have explanatory traction from a naturalistic perspective.
羅森陶指出若意識被當作一種本有性質,它就會是單純與不可分析的,並且因此無法提供科學性的說明,因為科學性說明要求一種具有心靈的外在性質的關係式架構。我首先從概念分析的角度批評羅森陶反本有主義的論證。接著,逐一檢視羅森陶三個反本有主義的論證:及物與非及物意識區分的論證、報告與表達的論證,與個別化心靈狀態的論證。我建議將單一心靈狀態的內容視為一個訊息空間,可以用之來說明意識。我依據兩種不同型態的本有主義來反對羅森陶的立場:一種是包含自我表徵,另一種則不包含。我們將會發現這兩種類型的理論,在自然主義的視角下都擁有解釋的力量。
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 61
劉吉宴
Chi Yen Liu
合理性推論的兩個準則
Two Criteria of Reasonable Inferences
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
亞當斯和史東內克在傳統的有效性觀點之外,對指示條件句的推論提出了合理性這樣的概念,並對這樣的概念提出了兩個不同的準則。本文從可斷說性的概念分別來對兩者提出形式上的刻畫,以檢視這兩者的關係。本文把亞當斯支持的準則稱為「可斷說性的證成性」,而把史東內克支持的準則稱為「嚴格的證成性」,並認為這兩個準則可以幫助我們釐清條件句推論中的爭議。本文用這兩個準則來重新分析麥基對肯定前件律所提出的反例,試圖說明為何麥基提出的是一個可斷說證成性的反例,而不是嚴格證成性的反例。接著,本文對這個現象提出一個診斷,說明為何這兩個準則只會在條件句的推論中產生實質的分歧。最後,本文論證可斷說性的證成性太過於嚴格而難以成立,主張嚴格的證成性才是一個較好的準則。
Validity is an orthodox way to distinguish between good and bad inferences, which says that when inferences are valid, we can derive true conclusions from true premises. But when inferences involve conditionals, validity does not seem to be a good criterion. Unsatisfied with the traditional view of validity, Adams(1965) and Stalnaker(1975) propose their modified criteria, which are called “reasonable inference” in this paper, to evaluate inferences involving conditionals. In this paper, Adams’ criterion is called “justification of assertibility”, which can derive a highly assertible conclusion from highly assertible premises. Stalnaker’s criterion is called “justification of strictness” in this paper, which can derive a strictly assertible conclusion from strictly assertible premises. This paper examines these two criteria and their consequences. First, by reexamining McGee’s(1985) counterexample to modus ponens, I argue that McGee’s example is an assertibility-justified but not a strictness-justified counterexample to modus ponens. Second, I explain why these two criteria have such a substantial divergence when inferences have conditional conclusions. Third, if my diagnosis is correct and complicated conditionals are allowed in inferences, then the justification of assertibility is too rigid to be satisfied. I conclude that the justification of strictness is a better criterionthan the justification of assertibility.
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2021 >
Issue: 61
Tsung-Hsing Ho
何宗興
How to Locate Pain in Mandarin:
Reply to Liu and Klein
如何在中文裡定位疼痛
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Some philosophers argue that pain is an object located in bodily parts because the locative form of pain report is permissible in English. To examine this argument, Liu and Klein recently argue that the linguistic argument cannot work because the locative form is impermissible in Mandarin. They are wrong, however. I demonstrate that the locative form in Mandarin is not only permissible but also common.
有些哲學家主張疼痛是一種處於身體部位的對象,理由是英文可以用定位句式說明疼痛是允許的。最近,Liu 與Klein 檢視中文對於說明疼痛的用法,指出中文不允許用定位句式說明疼痛。然而,我主張他們是錯的,我提供實例來論證如何在中文裡使用定位句式來說明疼痛。
|
|