Scholarlink

<p>In <i>Phenomenalism: A Metaphysics of Chance and Experience (2023),</i> Michael Pelczar argues that phenomenalism offers a superior account both of the nature of matter and of the relation between matter and consciousness, compared to traditional, Kantian and structural realism (when it comes to matter) and traditional materialism, traditional dualism and Russellian panpsychism (when it comes to consciousness), mainly because phenomenalism is simpler than these other theories while retaining the same explanatory power. In response, I argue that phenomenalism is not really simpler than other theories, in the main respects that Pelczar considers, and in some further respects he does not consider, it is actually less simple. I will also defend Russellian panpsychism (which like phenomenalism offers a theory of both matter and consciousness) against the charge that unlike phenomenalism, it renders physical objects mind-dependent. Furthermore, phenomenalism lacks an account of mental causation. This puts it at a clear disadvantage relative to Russellian panpsychism especially, considered as a theory of consciousness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Is Phenomenalism Superior to Russellian Panpsychism as a Theory of Consciousness and Matter?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月1日

查看全文
  • Hedda Hassel Mørch

摘要

In Phenomenalism: A Metaphysics of Chance and Experience (2023), Michael Pelczar argues that phenomenalism offers a superior account both of the nature of matter and of the relation between matter and consciousness, compared to traditional, Kantian and structural realism (when it comes to matter) and traditional materialism, traditional dualism and Russellian panpsychism (when it comes to consciousness), mainly because phenomenalism is simpler than these other theories while retaining the same explanatory power. In response, I argue that phenomenalism is not really simpler than other theories, in the main respects that Pelczar considers, and in some further respects he does not consider, it is actually less simple. I will also defend Russellian panpsychism (which like phenomenalism offers a theory of both matter and consciousness) against the charge that unlike phenomenalism, it renders physical objects mind-dependent. Furthermore, phenomenalism lacks an account of mental causation. This puts it at a clear disadvantage relative to Russellian panpsychism especially, considered as a theory of consciousness.