Abstract
The so-called explanatory gap between the physical and the mental, i.e., the claim that we have no satisfactory explanation of how or why a given physical or organic process generates or corresponds to a given experience or phenomenal feeling, has prompted still ongoing discussions. A number of naturalistic programs are in course trying to bridge that gap both conceptually and experimentally, in what seems a hopeless attempt to others. In particular, due to its fuzziness, the recourse to the concept of emergence has not been able to conceptually close the gap. However, while most philosophers acknowledge its existence, very few draw ontological conclusions from it. Now, two very different mental states are usually conflated in the debate: phenomenal experience – including perception, emotions, and feelings – which reveals an unavoidable subjective character, and mental acts that attain objective truth. Naturalistic explanations of mind face thus the further challenge of accounting for the existence of timeless principles and propositions. This strongly Platonic argument was one of the main arguments put forward against psychologism by the phenomenological school founded by Edmund Husserl since its beginnings. It has also been recently brought to light by Thomas Nagel, who despite supporting naturalism, acknowledges that naturalistic accounts of the mind need to widen their conceptual tools if they are to explain the whole of reality.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Schilbach L, Timmermans B, Vasudevi R, Costall A, Bente G, Schlicht T, et al. Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav Brain Sci. 2013;36:393–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660.
Darwall S. The second-person standpoint. Morality, respect, and accountability. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006.
Pinsent A. The second-person perspective in Aquinas’s ethics: virtues and gifts. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2011.
Kripke S. Naming and necessity. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1980.
Levine J. Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap. Pac Philos Q. 1983;64:354–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1983.tb00207.x.
Jakcson F. What Mary didn’t know. Australas J Philos. 1986;83:291–5. https://doi.org/jphil198683566.
Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? Phil Rev. 1974;83(4):435–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.
Block N, Stalnaker R. Conceptual analysis, dualism and the explanatory gap. Phil Rev. 1999;108(1):1–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998259.
Dennett D. Consciousness explained. 1st ed. New York: Back Bay Books; 1991.
Tye M. Phenomenal consciousness: the explanatory gap as a cognitive illusion. Mind. 1999;108:705–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/108.432.705.
Carruthers P. Reductive explanation and the ‘Explanatory Gap’. Can J Philos. 2004;34(2):153–74.
McGinn C. Can we solve the mind-body problem? Mind. 1989;98:349–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCVIII.391.349.
Flanagan O. Consciousness reconsidered. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.
Dennett D. Quining Qualia. In: Marcel AJ, Bisiach E, editors. Consciousness in contemporary science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988. p. 381–414.
Kitayama S, Park J. Cultural neuroscience of the self: understanding the social grounding of the brain. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010;5:111–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq052.
Searle J. Why I am not a property dualist. J Conscious Stud. 2002;9(12):57–64.
Searle J. The rediscovery of the mind. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992. p. 123.
Labarca M, Lastiri M. Relaciones interteóricas. In: Vanney CE, Silva I, Franck JF, editors. Diccionario Interdisciplinar Austral. 2017. http://dia.austral.edu.ar/Relaciones_interteóricas. Accessed 26 Aug 2017.
Kim J. The myth of nonreductive materialism. Proc Addresses Am Philos Assoc. 1989;63(3):31–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3130081.
Kim J. Making sense of emergence. Phil Stud. 1999;95:3–36, 25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004563122154.
Kim J. Making sense of emergence. Phil Stud. 1999;95:3–36, 32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004563122154.
Nagel T. Panpsychism. In: Nagel T, editor. Mortal questions. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1979. p. 181–95.
Strawson G. Consciousness and its place in nature. 1st ed. Exeter: Imprint Academic; 2006.
Nagel T. Mind and cosmos. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Chalmers DJ. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Conscious Stud. 1995;2(3):200–19.
Bayne T. Closing the gap? Some questions for neurophenomenology. Phenomenol Cogn Sci. 2004;3(4):349–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000048934.34397.ca.
Hameroff S. ‘Funda-Mentality’: is the conscious mind subtly linked to a basic level of the universe? Trends Cogn Sci. 1998;2(4):119–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01157-7.
Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe: a review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Phys Life Rev. 2004;11(1):39–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002.
Di Paolo E. 2016. Enactivismo. In: Vanney CE, Silva I, Franck JF, editors. Diccionario Interdisciplinar Austral. 2017. http://dia.austral.edu.ar/Enactivismo. Accessed 23 Aug 2017.
Thompson E. Mind in life. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard; 2007.
Rudrauf D, Lutz A, Cosmelli D, Lachaux JP, Le Van Quyen M. From autopoiesis to neurobiology: Francisco Varela’s exploration of the biophysics of being. Biol Res. 2003;36:27–65. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602003000100005.
Varela F. The naturalization of phenomenology as the transcendence of nature: searching for generative mutual constraints. Rev Phénoménologie. 1997;5:355–85.
Petitot J, Varela F, Pachoud B, Roy JM. Naturalizing phenomenology. Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science. 1st ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1999.
Gallagher S, Zahavi D. The phenomenological mind. Abingdon: Routledge; 2008.
Husserl E. Phenomenological psychology. Lectures, summer semester 1925. 1st ed. La Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1977. p. 15.
Husserl E. Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Teil. La Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1975. p. 87. My translation.
Nagel T. Mind and cosmos. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 81–6.
Nagel T. Mind and cosmos. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 72–80.
Plato. Timaeus. vol. 69c, p. 3–5.
Nagel T. The last word. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997. p. 127–43.
Block N. The harder problem of consciousness. Australas J Philos. 2002;XCIX-8:391–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/3655621.
Moulines U. ¿Por qué no soy materialista? Critica. 1977;9(26):25–37. 25. My translation.
Gasser G, Stefan M. The heavy burden of proof for ontological naturalism. In: Gasser G, editor. How successful is naturalism? Frankfurt: Ontos; 2007. p. 159–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franck, J.F. (2019). The Double Challenge to Naturalistic Conceptions of the Mind. In: Gargiulo, P., Mesones Arroyo, H. (eds) Psychiatry and Neuroscience Update . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95360-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95359-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95360-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)