Neural correlates of consciousness (for brevity NCC) are foundational to the scientific study of consciousness. Chalmers (2000) has provided the most informative and influential definition of NCC, according to which neural correlates are minimally sufficient for consciousness. However, the sense of sufficiency needs further clarification since there are several relevant senses with different entailments. In section one of this article, we give an overview of the desiderata for a good definition of NCC and Chalmers’s definition. The second section analyses the (...) merit of understanding the sufficiency of neural correlates for corresponding consciousness according to three relevant types of sufficiency: logical, metaphysical, and physical. In section three, a theoretical approach to consciousness studies is suggested in light of the sense in which NCC are sufficient for consciousness. Section four addresses a concern some might have about this approach. By the end, it will become apparent that our conception of NCC has important implications for research methodology, neuroethics, and the vitality of the search for NCC. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to critically examine the objections of John Locke’s contemporaries against the theory of substance or substratum. Locke argues in Essay that substratum is the bearer of the properties of a particular substance. Locke also claims that we have no knowledge of substratum. But Locke’s claim about our ignorance as to what substratum is, is contentious. That is, if we don’t know what substratum is, then what is the point of proposing it as a bearer (...) of properties? This question underlies the criticism Locke’s contemporaries raise against the notion of substratum. In section I, I lay out the context for Locke’s theory of substratum by pointing out his main motivation in proposing his theory. In section II, I give a brief analysis of the theory of substratum. In section III, I discuss the objections of Locke’s contemporaries against the theory of substratum.1 I focus on Edward Stillingfleet, Lee Henry, G. W. Leibniz and John Sergeant. In section IV, I conclude that there is no warrant to dismiss Locke’s theory of substance. (shrink)

This essay, will focus on Brandon Rickabaugh and J. P. Moreland’s discussion on emergent properties, thin particular hylomorphism, and the relevance of their book, The Substance of Consciousness: A Comprehensive Defense of Contemporary Substance Dualism, to advance the question that both philosophers and scientists ask regarding “strong artificial intelligence,” that is, whether computers will ever be conscious as technological devices as the programs that run on them get more and more complex.

E. J. Lowe argues in Personal Agency that the self is physically embodied yet not identical with any physical body, nor with any part of a physical body, such as the brain. For Lowe, the self is an agent that is capable of carrying out intentional actions. Call this the thesis about the self (TS). In this paper my purpose is to develop and defend TS and argue that Frank Jackson’s serious metaphysics (SM) fails to account for the nature of (...) the self. This paper is outlined as follows: Section I presents Lowe’s theory of the self. In section II, I present Jackson’s central claims of SM. In section III, I develop Jackson’s SM as an objection against Lowe’s TS. In section IV, I respond to objections raised against Lowe’s TS and then critique Jackson’s claim that if an entity is not locatable within the framework of physicalism it should be eliminated. In section V, I conclude that Lowe’s TS is superior to Jackson’s SM. (shrink)

In this paper, I will give a three-stage analysis of the origin of phenomenal consciousness. The first one has to do with a non-causal stage. The second one has to do with a causal stage. The third one has to do with a correlation stage. This paper is divided into three sections. In section I, I will discuss a non-causal stage which focuses on finite consciousness as an irreducible emergent property—i.e., a simple non-structural property that is unique to the “emergent” (...) level of reality. I will examine currently dominant accounts of the emergence of phenomenal consciousness—which require consciousness to have some sort of causal link to its base level. Those who think of the emergence of consciousness in casual terms, often have in mind, brain complexity as a source of such causality. However, the causal proposal faces two serious empirically supported objections, namely: the gametes problem and the complexity problem, respectively. The first objection deals with conception (i.e., fertilization) and the impossibility of tracking down/spotting the origin of consciousness at any point during the process of the development of a foetus. The second objection focuses on demonstrating that, no amount of analysis of the physical basis of complex brain will unfold anything substantial about the origin of consciousness. Both of these two objections show why the diachronic account of the origin of the phenomenal consciousness is hard to come by. In section II, I will discuss a causal stage which focuses on, how once it emerges, consciousness enters into the domain of causal interaction with brain states. This is the stage where we come across both ‘the explanatory gap problem’ and ‘the hard problem of consciousness.’ In section III, I will discuss the correlation stage which focuses on the manner in which phenomenal consciousness continues to co-exist with its physical base (e.g., brain). To show this, I will discuss the notion of correlation and its relation to causation. The upshot of my discussion in the above three sections will constitute the view I call the non-causal spontaneous emergence of phenomenal consciousness. According to the view I am proposing, there is no causal-link between strongly emergent property (in this case, consciousness) and its base level—although the base level (as far as we know) serves as a sufficient condition (but not as a necessary condition) for its emergence. In light of this, I conclude this paper by claiming that phenomenal consciousness is a strongly emergent property. (shrink)

The essays in this special issue focus on connecting the relevant aspects of Lowe’s metaphysics to issues in philosophical theology. In this regard, the essays focus on Trinity, divine causal agency, atonement, embodied existence, physicalism vs. dualism, natural science, and theological claims.

In this paper, my main goal is to discuss two incompatible answers proposed to what I shall call, the objectivity seeking question (OSQ). The first answer is what I shall call the primacy thesis, according to which the third-person perspective is superior to that of the first-person perspective. Ultimately I will reject this answer. The second answer is what I shall call the skepticism thesis, according to which the distinction between the first-person perspective and the third-person perspective can be maintained (...) without reducing to/explaining away the former in terms of the latter. This is the answer I will defend albeit with some qualification. In this case, I will advance my discussion by appealing to the metaphysics of conscious experience/phenomenal consciousness. Third and finally, I will consider some empirically motivated objections against the skepticism thesis. In this case, my focus will be on modern neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and positron emission tomography (PET) and see whether or not they pose a serious threat against the skepticism thesis. My overall conclusion will be that science and subjectivity, which is rooted in the first-person perspective, can coexist in the sense of complementing each other. (shrink)

The essays in this volume focus on the notion of the first-person pro-noun ‘I’, the notion of the self or person,1 and the notion of the first-person perspective. Let us call these the three notions. Ever since Descartes set the initial tone in his Meditations, modern philosophical controversies concerning the three notions have continued unabated. Part of the reason for ongoing debates has to do with the sorts of questions that the three notions give rise to.

This book aims to show the centrality of a proper ontology of properties in thinking about consciousness. Philosophers have long grappled with what is now known as the hard problem of consciousness, i.e., how can subjective or qualitative features of our experience—such as how a strawberry tastes—arise from brain states? More recently, philosophers have incorporated what seems like promising empirical research from neuroscience and cognitive psychology in an attempt to bridge the gap between measurable mental states on the one hand, (...) and phenomenal qualities on the other. In Consciousness and the Ontology of Properties, many of the leading philosophers working on this issue, as well as a few emerging scholars, have written 14 new essays on this problem. The essays address topics as diverse as substance dualism, mental causation, the metaphysics of artificial intelligence, the logic of conceivability, constitution, extended minds, the emergence of consciousness, and neuroscience and the unity and neural correlates of consciousness, but are nonetheless unified in a collective objective: the need for a proper ontology of properties to understand the hard problem of consciousness, both on non-empirical and empirical grounds. (shrink)

This book aims to show why a proper ontology of persons has paramount importance for our understanding of the nature of consciousness and its relation to the phenomenon of unconsciousness and artificial intelligence. Contemporary discussions on consciousness often focus on seeking solutions for a wide range of issues that revolve around questions related to what sort of role the brain plays in the existence of consciousness. These questions raise multi-layered and diverse metaphysical (especially, ontological), personal, medical, moral, and legal issues. (...) In navigating through such a complex web of issues, it has been said that the central problems philosophers and scientists face are establishing the nature and origin of consciousness. For example, is consciousness nothing but a brain process? If not, how is it related to brain activities? Can consciousness exist without depending on the brain and its activities? What are the neural correlates of consciousness, unconsciousness, and persons? Can we make an advance on the science of consciousness by investigating what happens to the brain during general anesthesia? Is there a relation between consciousness and unconsciousness? What is the bearer of consciousness and unconsciousness? Can consciousness exist without being someone’s consciousness? Is consciousness reproducible in computers or digital machines? If consciousness is not in all things, then what conditions must be satisfied for its emergence? Is it ethical to take someone’s vital organs without any prior consent from a person in an irreversible comatose state? The beginning and end of life issues also bring up their own complicated ethical conundrums involving consciousness. (shrink)

In this chapter, I will advance my discussion of the propertyhood of consciousness in light of some influential philosophical theories of properties. My goal in doing so is to shed some light on the nature of consciousness. The discussion advanced in this chapter will, I hope, give an important philosophical foundation for those who work on the science of consciousness. I will begin my discussion by framing and locating the PCQ (the propertyhoodness of consciousness question) within the broader contemporary debates (...) on the nature of mental properties. Following this, my discussion will proceed in five stages. In stage one, I will present a brief exposition of some of the dominant and representative views of the metaphysics of properties such as Platonic universals, Aristotelian universals, and Nominalism. In stage two, I will present the analysis of consciousness taken as a property within the framework of the theories of properties discussed in stage one. Ultimately, I will find these theories of properties wanting in terms of unpacking the true nature of consciousness. In stage three, I will discuss the location problem concerning the PCQ. In stage four, I will present an alternative model of consciousness called the bearer-dependent model of consciousness. I will develop this model of consciousness against the backdrop of the discussions advanced in stages one, two, and three. Finally, in stage five, I will discuss why the bearer-dependent model of consciousness provides us with an excellent conceptual framework to account for the co-emergence of consciousness and its bearer on the one hand and the sense in which consciousness can be said to be a property on the other. (shrink)

In this chapter, I will advance my discussion of the propertyhood of consciousness in light of some influential philosophical theories of properties. My goal in doing so is to shed some light on the nature of consciousness. The discussion advanced in this chapter will, I hope, give an important philosophical foundation for those who work on the science of consciousness. I will begin my discussion by framing and locating the PCQ (the propertyhoodness of consciousness question) within the broader contemporary debates (...) on the nature of mental properties. Following this, my discussion will proceed in five stages. In stage one, I will present a brief exposition of some of the dominant and representative views of the metaphysics of properties such as Platonic universals, Aristotelian universals, and Nominalism. In stage two, I will present the analysis of consciousness taken as a property within the framework of the theories of properties discussed in stage one. Ultimately, I will find these theories of properties wanting in terms of unpacking the true nature of consciousness. In stage three, I will discuss the location problem concerning the PCQ. In stage four, I will present an alternative model of consciousness called the bearer-dependent model of consciousness. I will develop this model of consciousness against the backdrop of the discussions advanced in stages one, two, and three. Finally, in stage five, I will discuss why the bearer-dependent model of consciousness provides us with an excellent conceptual framework to account for the co-emergence of consciousness and its bearer on the one hand and the sense in which consciousness can be said to be a property on the other. (shrink)

In this chapter, I aim to examine the two central properties that are said to underlie the theory of mirror neurons, namely action execution and action observation. I shall call these the functional properties of mirror neurons. I will argue that attributing the functional properties of mirror cognition, as many neuroscientists do, to the so-called ‘mirror neurons’ suffers from the problem of misidentification. This is the problem of incorrectly identifying an object or a property of one sort with some other (...) object or property. In light of this, I will propose that the most promising solution for the problem of misidentification is to ground the functional properties of mirror neurons squarely in consciousness and its bearer. (shrink)

In this paper, I aim to discuss E. J. Lowe's view of the synergy between metaphysics and natural science. In doing so, I will extend Lowe’s synergistic model to develop a realist account of theological claims thereby responding to Byrne’s strong form of eliminativism and agnosticism about theological claims. The paper is divided up as follows. In section 1, I will discuss Lowe’s view of metaphysics. In section 2, I will explain how Lowe thinks metaphysics and natural science are related. (...) In section 3, I will respond to objections against Lowe’s conception of metaphysics. In section 4, I will discuss the implications of Lowe’s conception of metaphysics for a realist account of theological claims. In section 5, I will conclude this paper by claiming that there are excellent reasons to extend the synergy between metaphysics and natural science to that of theology as well. (shrink)

This paper examines certain influential contemporary philosophical analyses of the notion of a person and show why they are misguided. Inspired by the Lockean conception of a person, some philosophers claim that personhood must be attributed only to those human beings who can meet certain criteria required for it. Here the views of Tooley, Dennett and Singer will be discussed against the backdrop of the metaphysics of powers ontology as advocated by contemporary philosophers: C. B. Martin, John Heil and others.

This book presents engaging and informative analysis of three interrelated notions, namely: selfhood, the first person pronoun ‘I’ and the first person perspective. Philosophers have long debated about these notions on non-empirical grounds often focusing on the question of whether the first person pronoun ‘I’, beyond its role as a grammatical term, has an underlying implication for the ontology of selfhood. Philosophers continuously grapple with whether the first person pronoun ‘I’ is a referring expression and if it is, what its (...) referent is or could be. To give an adequate treatment of such questions, philosophers have begun working across the relevant disciplines. This book highlights some excellent examples of the complex nature of the first person thoughts as they figure in linguistics, autism, thought insertion in schizophrenia and the phenomenon of mental autonomy. In Selfhood, Autism and Thought Insertion, many of the leading philosophers working on this issue, as well as a few emerging scholars, have written 12 new essays addressing questions besetting the ontology of selfhood. The essays address topics as diverse as reflections on E. J. Lowe’s non-Cartesian substance dualism, physical determinism, the metaphysics and anti-metaphysics of the self, animalism, neo-Lockean persons, rationality and the first-person, whether the first person is essentially a linguistic concept, first-person and third-person perspectives and autism, consciousness, first person perspective and neuroimaging, thought insertion and mental autonomy. The contributors to this volume do not agree in all of the details associated with the notion of selfhood, yet they all have a common conviction that the central questions besetting it must be taken seriously. (shrink)

This essay, will focus on Brandon Rickabaugh and JP Moreland’s discussion on emergent properties, thin particular hylomorphism, and the relevance of their book, The Substance of Consciousness: A comprehensive Defense of Contemporary Substance Dualism, to advance the question that both philosophers and scientists ask regarding “strong artificial intelligence,” that is, whether computers will ever be conscious as technological devices as the programs that run on them get more and more complex.

This volume attempts to show why ontology matters for a proper grasp of issues in bioethics. -/- Contemporary discussions on bioethics often focus on seeking solutions for a wide range of issues that revolve around persons. The issues in question are multi-layered, involving such diverse aspects as the metaphysical/ontological, personal, medical, moral, legal, cultural, social, political, religious, and environmental. In navigating through such a complex web of issues, it has been said that the central problems philosophers and bioethicists face are (...) ethical in nature. In this regard, biomedical sciences and technological breakthroughs take a leading role in terms of shaping the sorts of questions that give rise to ethical problems. For example, is it ethical to keep terminally ill patients alive on dialysis machines or artificial ventilators? Is it ethical to take someone’s vital organs upon death and transplant them into another person’s body without any prior consent from a deceased person? Reproductive techniques also raise complicated ethical issues involving in vitro fertilization, contraceptives, prenatal testing, abortions, and genetic enhancements. Moreover, biomedical issues raise ethical problems in regards to research on human subjects, stem cell research, and enhancement biotechnology. The beginning and end of life issues bring up their own complicated ethical conundrums involving, among other things, terminating life support and euthanasia. -/- This book approaches such complex bioethical questions by engaging in ground-level debates about the ontology of persons. This is a non-negotiable first step in taking steps forward in seeking a plausible solution(s) for the complex ethical problems in bioethics. Although the contributors in this book advance their arguments in their own ways, they all agree on one crucial methodological point: the importance of taking the ontology of persons for bioethics seriously. This is the spirit that brings the contributors of this book together as they seek to build their case(s) concerning the nature of persons. (shrink)

This essay makes a case for the metaphysical status of the human fetus. I argue that personhood begins at conception as opposed to at some point in the post-conception continuum. However, there is a deep division over this matter. Defenders of the pro-life position grant that life begins at conception. In contrast, defenders of the pro-choice position deny that life begins at conception. Even if it were the case that life begins at conception, proponents of abortion claim that a woman’s (...) bodily autonomy should come first over protecting the fetus’s life. Contemporary discussions regarding this matter continue to lack a clear and adequate account of why we continue to face a stalemate in terms of settling the issue of the metaphysical status of the human fetus. In section I, I discuss what I call the less central issues that stand in the way when it comes to addressing the main question of the personhood of the human fetus. In section II, I discuss the personhood problem as it relates to the fetus. In section III, I sketch out a conception- grounded theory of fetal personhood. In section IV, I consider some objections. In section V, I discuss the origin problem as it relates to the fetus within the broader context of the challenge, we face in answering the question of the nature of life. Finally, in section VI, I conclude this paper by claiming that conception plays a decisive metaphysical role in the personhood status of the fetus. (shrink)

The Chalcedonian Definition states that the incarnate Christ is both fully human and fully divine. But spelling out what the Chalcedonian Definition entails continues to be a subject of intense controversy among philosophers and theologians alike. One of these controversies concerns what I call the problem of the bearer question. At the heart of this question lies whether or not the two natures of Christ require two distinct bearers. In section I, I will explain the problem of the bearer question (...) and how it arises directly due to the Chalcedonian Definition. In section II, I will propose a solution to the problem of the bearer question within the framework of what I call, a ‘Multi–Track Disposition Model of the Incarnation’. At the heart of this model lies the notion that the manifestation of properties is multi–directional in the sense that there is a reciprocal partnership among property manifestations. In section III, I will contrast the solution proposed to the bearer question by the Multi–Track Model to that of a ‘Kenotic Model of the Incarnation’. I will argue that the Multi–Track Model provides us with better conceptual resources to make sense of the bearer question. Finally, in section IV, I will briefly point out why ultimately a conclusive answer to the bearer question may still prove to be elusive because the bearer question gives rise to a host of other unresolved questions. (shrink)

The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy. Edited by Gabriele Galluzzo and Michael J. Loux.