Knowledge argument Though there have been many objections to physicalism throughout its history, many of them are concerned with the apparent contradiction of the existence of
qualia in an entirely physical world. The most popular argument of this kind is the so-called knowledge argument as formulated by
Frank Jackson, titled "
Mary's room". The argument asks us to consider Mary, a girl who has been forced to discover the world from a black-and-white room via a black-and-white television monitor throughout her life. She has access to books containing all physical knowledge. During her time in the room, she learns all the physical facts about the world, including all the physical facts about color. To a physicalist, it would seem that this entails Mary knowing everything about the world. But once she is let out of the room and into the world, it becomes apparent that there were things Mary did not know about the world, such as the
feeling (the qualitative experience) of seeing color. If Mary did not have such knowledge, how can it be said that everything supervenes upon the physical?
Physicalist response One response, developed by Lawrence Nemerow and
David Lewis, is known as the ability hypothesis. The ability hypothesis distinguishes between propositional knowledge, such as "Mary knows that the sky is typically blue during the day", and knowledge-how, such as "Mary knows how to climb a mountain", and says that all Mary gains from seeing the world in color is knowledge-how. According to this response, Mary does gain knowledge from her experience, but it is not the propositional knowledge required for the knowledge argument to be logically sound.
Argument from philosophical zombies One commonly issued challenge to a priori physicalism and physicalism in general is the "conceivability argument", or
zombie argument. The conceivability argument runs roughly as follows: • According to physicalism, everything in our world (including consciousness) is physical. • Thus, if physicalism is true, a metaphysically possible world in which all physical facts are the same as in the actual world contains everything that exists in the actual world. In particular, conscious experience exists in such a world. • We can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). From this it follows that such a world is metaphysically possible. • Therefore, physicalism is false. (This
follows from (2) and (3) by
modus tollens.) The possibility of
philosophical zombies (p-zombies) entails that mental states do not supervene upon physical states, and thus that physicalism is false. Australian philosopher
David Chalmers argues that the conceivability of a zombie entails a metaphysical possibility.
Physicalist response Galen Strawson argues that it is impossible to establish the conceivability of zombies, so the argument, lacking its first premise, fails.
Daniel Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition". He coined the term "zimboes"—p-zombies that have
second-order beliefs—in arguing that p-zombies are incoherent: "Zimboes thinkZ they are conscious, thinkZ they have qualia, thinkZ they suffer pains—they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!"
Daniel Stoljar has proposed what he calls "the
phenomenal concept strategy". Roughly, the phenomenal concept strategy attempts to show that only the
concept of consciousness—not the
property—is in some way "special" or
sui generis. Essentially, he believes if we can figure out why we think there is a difference between physical processes and consciousness, we are less likely to question physicalism.
Hempel's Dilemma Physicalists have traditionally opted for a "theory-based" characterization of the physical in terms of either current physics or a future (ideal) physics. Hempel's Dilemma (named after the philosopher of science
Carl Gustav Hempel) attacks physicalism by arguing that both of these approaches are problematic. If, on the one hand, we define the physical by reference to current physics, then physicalism is very likely to be false because it is very likely (by pessimistic meta-induction) that much of current physics is false. If, on the other hand, we define the physical in terms of a future (ideal) or completed physics, then physicalism is hopelessly vague or indeterminate.
Physicalist response Some physicalists, like Andre Melnyk, accept the dilemma's first horn: they accept that the current definition of physicalism is very likely false as long it is more plausible than any currently formulated rival proposition, such as dualism. Melnyk maintains that this is the attitude most scientists hold toward scientific theories anyway. For example, a defender of evolutionary theory may well accept that its current formulation is likely to be revised in the future but defend it because they believe current evolutionary theory is more likely than any current rival idea, such as creationism. Thus Melnyk holds that one should define physicalism in relation to current physics and have a similar attitude toward its truth as most scientists have toward the truth of currently accepted scientific theories.
David Papineau and Barbara Montero have argued for a "via negativa" characterization of the physical. The gist of this approach is characterize the physical in terms of what it is not: the mental. In other words, the via negativa strategy understands the physical as the non-mental.
Argument from overdetermination Jaegwon Kim objects to non-reductive physicalism based on the problem of
overdetermination. He proposes (using the chart on the right) that
M1 causes
M2 (these are mental events) and
P1 causes
P2 (these are physical events).
M1 has
P1 as its supervenience base (P1 realizes M1), and
M2 has
P2 as its supervenience base (P2 realizes M2). If
P1 causes
P2 and M1 causes M2, then we have a case of causal overdetermination. To avoid this causal overdetermination, either M1 or P1 must be eliminated as a cause of P2. Because of the principle of the
causal closure of the physical, M1 is excluded. The non-reductive physicalist is then forced to choose between two unappealing options: accept overdetermination or embrace
epiphenomenalism. Kim thus argues that mental causation can be preserved only by embracing a reductionist view, whereby mental properties are considered causally efficacious by being reduced to physical properties. List also argues that there is a "quadrilemma" for theories of consciousness: that at most three of the following metaphysical claims can be true: "first-person
realism", "non-
solipsism", "non-fragmentation", and "one world"—and thus at least one of them must be false. He has proposed a model he calls the "many-worlds theory of consciousness" to reconcile the subjective nature of consciousness without lapsing into solipsism. These ideas are related to the
vertiginous question proposed by Benj Hellie. == Other views ==