We experience the intuition of distinctness when, for example, we attend introspectively to the phenomenal redness of a current visual sensation and it seems to us that that very property could not literally be a physical property of neural activity in a certain tiny region of our brain. The book begins by arguing that the intuition of distinctness underlies certain otherwise puzzling attitudes manifested in debates both inside and outside philosophy about whether physicalism (or materialism) can accommodate phenomenal (...) properties (or qualia). It then argues systematically against the dualist suggestion that the intuition of distinctness gives us reason to reject the physicalist view that phenomenal properties are physical, and to adopt property dualism instead. In the course of the argument, it defends an unorthodox version of representationalism and offers positive accounts of what makes our introspective knowledge of phenomenal properties special, how introspection could tell us that an introspected property is physical, and what the subjectivity of phenomenal properties could be. Finally, after critically surveying previous attempts to account for the intuition of distinctness consistently with physicalism, it elaborates a novel explanation of the intuition of distinctness. The intuition arises because introspection is, in a certain way, conceptually encapsulated, as a result of which we are unable to do something that we can do in the case of every other kind of identity claim that we believe or entertain, and therefore unable to believe, or even to imagine believing, that an introspected phenomenal property is physical. (shrink)

This paper offers a metaphysical explanation of the identity and distinctness of concrete objects. It is tempting to try to distinguish concrete objects on the basis of their possessing different qualitative features, where qualitative features are ones that do not involve identity. Yet, this criterion for object identity faces counterexamples: distinct objects can share all of their qualitative features. This paper suggests that in order to distinguish concrete objects we need to look not only at which properties and relations (...) objects instantiate but also how they instantiate these properties and relations. I propose that objects are identical when they stand in certain qualitative relations in virtue of their existence. And concrete objects are distinct when they do not stand in the same kinds of relations to one another in virtue of their existence. (shrink)

In tradition linked to Aristotle and Kant, many contemporary philosophers treat practical and theoretical normativity as two genuinely distinct domains of normativity. In this paper I consider the question of what it is for normative domains to be distinct. I suggest that there are two different ways that the distinctness thesis might be understood and consider the different implications of the two different distinctness theses.

One conception of the Principle of Sufficient Reason maintains that every fact is metaphysically explained. There are different ways to challenge this version of the PSR; one type of challenge involves pinpointing a specific set of facts that resist metaphysical explanation. Certain identity and distinctness facts seem to constitute such a set. For example, we can imagine a scenario in which we have two qualitatively identical spheres, Castor and Pollux. Castor is distinct from Pollux but it is unclear what (...) could metaphysically explain this distinctness fact. In this paper, I argue that we should not treat identity and distinctness facts as metaphysically fundamental. As such, identity and distinctness facts do not challenge the PSR. We can metaphysically explain them. (shrink)

Descartes's general rule that “whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived is true” has traditionally been criticized on two closely related grounds. As Leibniz, for example, puts it, clearness and distinctness are of no value as criteria of truth unless we have criteria of clearness and distinctness; but Descartes gives none. And consequently, the standards of judgment which the rule in fact evokes are purely subjective and psychological. There must hence be set up analytic, logical “marks” by means of (...) which it can infallibly and without arbitrariness be recognized whether any ideas or propositions are or are not clear and distinct. (shrink)

It is argued that the intuitionistic conception of negation as implication of absurdity is inadequate for the proof-theoretic semantic analysis of negative predication and distinctness. Instead, it is suggested to construe negative predication proof-theoretically as subatomic derivation failure, and to define distinctness—understood as a qualified notion—by appeal to negative predication. This proposal is elaborated in terms of intuitionistic bipredicational subatomic natural deduction systems. It is shown that derivations in these systems normalize and that normal derivations have the subexpression (...) (incl. subformula) property. A proof-theoretic semantics for negative predication and distinctness is defined, and an intuitionistic conception of truth based on canonical derivations is proposed. An application to the doctrine of the Trinity, to which negative predication and distinctness are central, illustrates the systems and their proof-theoretic semantics. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Gualtiero Piccinini and Carl Craver have argued that psychology is not distinct from neuroscience. Many have argued that Piccinini and Craver’s argument is unsuccessful. However, none of these authors have questioned the appropriateness of Piccinini and Craver’s argument for their key premise—that functional analyses are mechanism sketches. My first and main goal in this paper is to show that Piccinini and Craver offer normative considerations in support of what is a descriptive premise and to provide some (...) guidelines on how to argue for this premise. My second goal is to show that the distinctness question should be of great significance for philosophy of cognitive science. (shrink)

The cerebral distinctness of the linguistic and mathematical faculties does not entail their functional independence. Approaches to language that posit a common foundation for the two make claims about design features, not location, and are thus not affected by the finding that one ability can be spared by a neurological accident that compromises the other.

Even materialists will admit that mind‐brain identity is counterintuitive. Some materialist philosophers think that this intuition is due to the plausibility of the standard antimaterialist arguments, like Jackson's knowledge argument or Kripke's modal argument. Papineau shows that this cannot be right, since these arguments apply equally in cases in which we feel no intuition of distinctness. Instead, he draws on remarks of Thomas Nagel to argue that the intuition of distinctness is due to an “antipathetic fallacy”: we move (...) from the true premise that phenomenal concepts don’t involve conscious feelings to the false conclusion that they don’t refer to them. (shrink)

According to many philosophers, an 'explanatory gap' exists between third-person scientific theories and qualitative firstperson experience of mental states like pain feelings or colour experiences such that the former can't explain the latter. Here it is argued that the thought experiments that are invoked by this position are inconsistent, that the position requires a specific kind of first-person privilege which actually does not exist, and that the underlying argument is circular because it is based on the very 'intuition of (...) class='Hi'>distinctness'which it allegedly confirms. The second part of the paper argues that the intuition of distinctness which has seen a significant change during the history of science is itself a product of scientific development. It would follow that future scientific developments can change this intuition and even make the explanatory gap problem disappear. (shrink)

This article considers Descartes's famous claim that mind and body are distinct substances from the unusual perspective of Nicolas Malebranche. In particular, it focuses on Malebranche's argument that since Cartesians feel compelled to support such a claim by appealing to their clear idea of body, they must lack access to a clear idea of soul. The main conclusion is that while such an argument does not apply directly to Descartes's discussion in the "Meditations" of mind- body distinctness, this discussion (...) nonetheless renders Descartes vulnerable to Malebranche's central charge that the nature of body is for Cartesians better known than the nature of the soul. (shrink)

Most theories of binding in most syntactic frameworks assume that the same notion of surface obliqueness that identi es the subject of a clause is also used for obliqueness conditions on re exive binding For instance in GB Chomsky binding theory is standardly de ned on S structure so that in Nancy can bind herself due to the c commanding con guration that also makes Nancy the subject of the sentence..

Descartes’s doctrine of clarity and distinctness states that whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived is true. This paper looks at his early doctrine from Rules for the Direction of the Mind, and its application to the demarcation problem of curves in Descartes’s Geometry. This paper offers and defends a novel account of the demarcation criterion of curves: a curve is geometrical just in case it is clearly and distinctly perceivable. This account connects Descartes’s rationalist epistemological programme with his ontological (...) views about mathematics. (shrink)

Abstract. The object of this essay is to explain what there is about discussions of Judaism and the sciences that is distinctive from discussions about religion in general and the sciences. The description draws primarily but not exclusively from recent meetings of the Judaism, Medicine, and Science Group in Tempe, Arizona. The author's Jewish Faith and Modern Science, together with a selective bibliography of writings in this subfield, are used to generate a list of science issues—focused around the religious doctrines (...) of creation, revelation, and redemption in Judaism—that raise specific challenges to Jewish faith. Special attention is given to Leon Kass's The Hungry Soul as an example of a distinctive way to integration knowledge of both science and rabbinic Judaism on a philosophical issue. (shrink)

Descartes claims that God is a substance, and that mind and body are two different and separable substances. This paper provides some background that renders these claims intelligible. For Descartes, that something is real means it can exist in separation, and something is a substance if it does not depend on other substances for its existence. Further, separable objects are correlates of distinct ideas, for an idea is distinct (in an objective sense) if its object may be easily and clearly (...) separated from everything that is not its object. It follows that if our idea of God is our most distinct idea, as Descartes claims, then God must be a substance in the Cartesian sense of the term. Also, if we can have an idea of a thinking subject which does not in any sense refer to bodily things, and if bodily things are substances, then mind and body must be two different substances. (shrink)

Soames and others have proposed that propositions are types of acts of predication. Soames has extended the act-type theory by proposing a distinction between direct and mediate predication. He does this in order to distinguish between the propositions expressed by sentences containing complex singular terms and those expressed by sentences containing proper names which denote the objects that those complex singular terms denote. In particular, he uses his extension to account for the cognitive distinctness of such propositions. I argue (...) that Soames’ extension of the act-type theory is not the best way to do so. I propose an alternative version of the act-type theory, which makes the distinctions that Soames wants to make without Soames’ extension. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Kaplan (Synthese 183:339–373, 2011) takes up the task of extending Craver’s (Explaining the brain, 2007) mechanistic account of explanation in neuroscience to the new territory of computational neuroscience. He presents the model to mechanism mapping (3M) criterion as a condition for a model’s explanatory adequacy. This mechanistic approach is intended to replace earlier accounts which posited a level of computational analysis conceived as distinct and autonomous from underlying mechanistic details. In this paper I discuss work in (...) computational neuroscience that creates difficulties for the mechanist project. Carandini and Heeger (Nat Rev Neurosci 13:51–62, 2012) propose that many neural response properties can be understood in terms of canonical neural computations. These are “standard computational modules that apply the same fundamental operations in a variety of contexts.” Importantly, these computations can have numerous biophysical realisations, and so straightforward examination of the mechanisms underlying these computations carries little explanatory weight. Through a comparison between this modelling approach and minimal models in other branches of science, I argue that computational neuroscience frequently employs a distinct explanatory style, namely, efficient coding explanation. Such explanations cannot be assimilated into the mechanistic framework but do bear interesting similarities with evolutionary and optimality explanations elsewhere in biology. (shrink)

DESCARTES'S MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR DUALISM--FROM HIS INABILITY\nTO CONCEIVE MIND "APART FROM" BODY AND FROM PSYCHIC\nSIMPLICITY--ARE ESSENTIALLY ALIKE. BUT BOTH ARE AMBIGUOUS:\nDESCARTES VACILLATES BETWEEN USING GOD TO "VALIDATE" AN\nALREADY GIVEN DUALIST CONCLUSION AND USING THE GUARANTEE TO\nINFER DUALISM FROM THE EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY OF A\nDISEMBODIED MIND. HIS THEORY OF REPRESENTATION LEAD HIM TO\nCONFUSE THESE STRATEGIES AND TO OVERLOOK THE PROBLEMS OF\nEACH. NONETHELESS, DESCARTES ANTICIPATES KANT'S INSIGHTS\nINTO THE FAILURES OF TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF MIND.

Understanding the 'making-up' relations, to put things neutrally, posited in mechanistic explanations the sciences is finally an explicit topic of debate amongst philosophers of science. In particular, there is now lively debate over the nature of the so-called 'realization' relations between properties posited in such explanations. Despite criticism (Gillett, Analysis 62: 316-323, 2002a), the most common approach continues to be that of applying machinery developed in the philosophy of mind to scientific concepts in what is known as the 'Flat' or (...) 'Subset' model of 'realization' (Kim, Mind in a physical world, 1998; Shapiro, J Philos XCVII: 635-654, 2000; Clapp, J Philos XCVIII: 111-136,2001 ; Wilson, Philos Stud 145: 149-169,2009). My primary goal in this paper is to show in still more detail that the Subset model of realization is inadequate for the descriptive task of describing the 'making-up' relations posited between properties or their instances in mechanistic explanations in the higher sciences. And my secondary goal is to highlight why this critique of the Subset view as a first-order descriptive account also shows there are deep difficulties in using the Subset account to address second-order issues in the philosophy of science as well. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉLe «clair» et le «distinct» comptent parmi les concepts les plus importants de la théorie cartésienne de la connaissance. Il n'est pas étonnant dès lors qu'il se soit trouvé quelques divergences quant à la façon dont ces concepts doivent être compris. Mais jusqu'à tout récemment, les chercheurs ne se sont guère attardés sur ces divergences, alors pourtant que certaines d'entre elles sont fort remarquables. Ainsi certaines interprétations de la théorie soutiennent que le fait de contraindre la volonté est la marque (...) des idées claires et distinctes, tandis que cela est rejeté par d'autres. Certaines encore soutiennent que le clair et le distinct sont susceptibles de degrés, tandis que d'autres ne sont pas d'accord. Mon objectif dans cet article est d'esquisser une théorie générale capable de rendre compte, dans ces cas comme dans un certain nombre d'autres, de cette variété d'interprétations du clair et du distinct qui est enracinée dans le corpus cartésien même. J'appelle cette théorie «générale» dans la mesure où les diverses interprétations évoquées sont par rapport à elle comme des espèces par rapport à un genre. Ma reconstruction de la théorie générale trouve son appui textuel dans l'ensemble du corpus cartésien. Le gros de mes efforts, cependant, consiste à retracer la théorie dans un texte qui fut l'un des premiers écrits de Descartes : les Régies pour la direction de l'esprit. (shrink)

Several studies have demonstrated that individuals’ ability to perceive a speech sound contrast is related to the production of that contrast in their native language. The theoretical account for this relationship is that speech perception and production have a shared multimodal representation in relevant sensory spaces. This gives rise to a prediction that individuals with more narrowly defined targets will produce greater separation between contrasting sounds, as well as lower variability in the production of each sound. However, empirical studies that (...) tested this hypothesis, particularly with regard to variability, have reported mixed outcomes. The current study investigates the relationship between perceptual ability and production ability, focusing on the auditory domain. We examined whether individuals’ categorical labeling consistency for the American English /ε/–/æ/ contrast, measured using a perceptual identification task, is related to distance between the centroids of vowel categories in acoustic space and to two measures of production variability: the overall distribution of repeated tokens for the vowels and the proportional within-trial decrease in variability as defined as the magnitude of self-correction to the initial acoustic variation of each token. No significant associations were found between categorical labeling consistency and vowel contrast distance, between categorical labeling consistency and area of the ellipse, or between categorical labeling consistency and centering ratio. These null results suggest that the perception-production relation may not be as robust as suggested by a widely adopted theoretical framing in terms of the size of auditory target regions. However, the present results may also be attributable to choices in implementation that should be subject to further investigation. (shrink)

Critical comments on David Papineau's idea that people find physicalism about phenomenal consciousness unbelievable because they commit what he calls the 'antipathetic fallacy'.

There are two questions concerning Hume’s doctrine of existence which have not yet found any persuasive answer: What is his argument in favour of the thesis that there is no distinct idea of existence? What are the semantic and metaphysical consequences of this thesis within his philosophical framework? This paper mainly aims to answer question. In order to do that, I will first explain why some reconstructions suggested by interpreters such as Cummins and Bricke are problematic. One of them relies (...) on exegetically dubious presumptions; the other departs too much from Hume’s text. Then, I will offer my own reconstruction that makes maximal use of some principles which are very familiar to Hume’s readers, including the principle stating the similarity between perceptions and their images. After that, I will discuss a potential objection to my reconstruction and make a brief remark on question, arguing that, as opposed to numerous interpreters’ concerns, Hume’s thesis that there is no distinct idea of existence does not by itself prevent him from being able to conceive negative existential propositions. (shrink)

We clarify different definitions of the density matrix by proposing the use of different names, the full density matrix for a single-closed quantum system, the compressed density matrix for the averaged single molecule state from an ensemble of molecules, and the reduced density matrix for a part of an entangled quantum system, respectively. We show that ensembles with the same compressed density matrix can be physically distinguished by observing fluctuations of various observables. This is in contrast to a general belief (...) that ensembles with the same compressed density matrix are identical. Explicit expression for the fluctuation of an observable in a specified ensemble is given. We have discussed the nature of nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computing. We show that the conclusion that there is no quantum entanglement in the current nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computing experiment is based on the unjustified belief that ensembles having the same compressed density matrix are identical physically. Related issues in quantum communication are also discussed. (shrink)

The essay discusses the logic of distinction under the sign of the contemporary culture of difference and proposes a discussion of the relationship between taste and contemporary art. The recent trend toward greater individualization might have rendered social codes more permeable. But this state of affairs is neither the opposite of the standardization nor does it imply that the social logic of distinction has been suspended. It has merely undergone further differentiation, but without abolishing the signifiers of status. On the (...) one hand art as a commodity partakes in the respective developments, on the other, certain strands in contemporary art can also be read as opposing the subject of aesthetic experience to the subject of consumerist taste. (shrink)

Le problème abordé par cette étude concerne l’interprétation du statut de l’imagination dans les Méditations métaphysiques, dans son rapport avec l’intellection et la conception de l’espace, de ses objets et des propriétés mathématiques. Il s’agit en particulier de savoir comment l’imagination distincte paraît assurer la réalité de son objet lorsqu’il s’agit de l’espace en général et lorsqu’il s’agit des figures particulières.

CompUtmg Distinctions. Douglas G. Flemons. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1991. 164 p. $15 (cloth).

In _The distinctive terminology in Šarḥ al-Kāfiya by Raḍī l-Dīn al-ʾAstarābāḏī_ Beata Sheyhatovitch offers a comprehensive and systematic study of terminology used by a highly perceptive and original Arab grammarian from 13th century C.E.