Order:
See also
Lok-Chi Chan
National Taiwan University
  1.  50
    Can the Russellian Monist Escape the Epiphenomenalist’s Paradox?Lok-Chi Chan - forthcoming - Topoi:1-10.
    Russellian monism—an influential doctrine proposed by Russell (The analysis of matter, Routledge, London, 1927/1992)—is roughly the view that physics can only ever tell us about the causal, dispositional, and structural properties of physical entities and not their categorical (or intrinsic) properties, whereas our qualia are constituted by those categorical properties. In this paper, I will discuss the relation between Russellian monism and a seminal paradox facing epiphenomenalism, the paradox of phenomenal judgment: if epiphenomenalism is true—qualia are causally inefficacious—then any judgment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2. Four Meta-Methods for the Study of Qualia.Lok-Chi Chan & Andrew James Latham - forthcoming - Erkenntnis:1-23.
    In this paper, we describe four broad ‘meta-methods’ (as we shall call them) employed in scientific and philosophical research of qualia. These are the theory-centred meta-method, the property-centred meta-method, the argument-centred meta-method, and the event-centred meta-method. Broadly speaking, the theory-centred meta-method is interested in the role of qualia as some theoretical entities picked out by our folk psychological theories; the property-centred meta-method is interested in some metaphysical properties of qualia that we immediately observe through introspection (e.g. intrinsic, non-causal, ineffable); the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  73
    The Validation of Consciousness Meters: The Idiosyncratic and Intransitive Sequence of Conscious Levels.Andrew James Latham, Cameron Ellis, Lok-Chi Chan & David Braddon-Mitchell - 2017 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 24 (3-4):103-111.
    In this paper we describe a few interrelated issues for validating theories that posit levels of consciousness. First, validating levels of consciousness requires consensus about the ordering of conscious states, which cannot be easily achieved. This problem is particularly severe if we believe conscious states can be irreducibly smeared over time. Second, the relationship between conscious states is probably sometimes intransitive, which means levels of consciousness will not be amenable to a single continuous measure. Finally, even if a multidimensional approach (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography