Abstract
We consider an argument from Morris and Brown that there cannot be a genuinely physicalist version of Russellian monism, and rebut that argument. The rebuttal involves making a distinction between ways protophenomenal properties can be individuated: i). in terms of roles they play (e.g. grounding physical dispositions, constituting consciousness) and ii). in terms of their intrinsic nature. The Morris-Brown objection depends on individuating protophenomenal properties in way i), and can be sidestepped by individuating them in way ii, which, we argue, is anyway more in line with existing formulations of Russellian physicalism in the literature.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | anaa006 |
Pages (from-to) | 409-417 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | Analysis |
Volume | 80 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 18 May 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2020 |
Keywords
- Barbara Gail Montero
- Christopher Devlin Brown
- Kevin Morris
- Russellian monism
- inscrutables
- onsciousness
- panprotopsychism
- physicalism
- protophenomenal