James C. Blackmon

James C. Blackmon
San Francisco State University | SFSU · Department of Philosophy

PhD

About

11
Publications
3,042
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
49
Citations
Citations since 2017
2 Research Items
13 Citations
20172018201920202021202220230123456
20172018201920202021202220230123456
20172018201920202021202220230123456
20172018201920202021202220230123456
Introduction
James Blackmon currently works at the Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University. James does research in Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Science, Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. One of his current projects is 'implications of hemispherectomies for consciousness and moral status'.
Additional affiliations
August 2006 - present
San Francisco State University
Position
  • Lecturer

Publications

Publications (11)
Article
Full-text available
I argue that if minds supervene on the intrinsic physical properties of things like brains, then typical human brains host many minds at once. Support comes from science-nonfiction realities that, unlike split-brain cases, have received little direct attention from philosophers. One of these realities is that some patients are functioning (albeit i...
Article
Full-text available
In addition to his famous Chinese Room argument, John Searle has posed a more radical problem for views on which minds can be understood as programs. Even his wall, he claims, implements the WordStar program according to the standard definition of implementation because there is some "pattern of molecule movements" that is isomorphic to the formal...
Research
Full-text available
Eugene Mills's simple solution to the Liar Paradox is extended to Liar Pairs, showing that it avoids paradox. However, the cost appears to be some counter-intuitive semantic limitations.
Article
Integrated information theory (IIT) identifies consciousness with having a maximum amount of integrated information. But a thing's having the maximum amount of anything cannot be intrinsic to it, for that depends on how that thing compares to certain other things. IIT's consciousness, then, is not intrinsic. A mereological argument elaborates this...
Article
Full-text available
IIT includes commitments about the very nature of physical reality, a fact both highly unusual for an empirical theory within neuroscience, and surprisingly underappreciated within the literature. These commitments are intimately tied to the theory; they are not incidental. This paper demonstrates as much by raising certain objections in a “naive”...
Chapter
A ghost is a supernatural being that is typically described as capable of appearing to, speaking to, and even doing harm to a person. But it is also described as a being that you cannot touch or affect in the usual ways. Lots of things seem weird at first, but humans don't think of them as supernatural. It's easy to see how material things interact...
Article
Full-text available
In addition to his famous Chinese Room argument, John Searle has posed a more radical problem for views on which minds can be understood as programs. Even his wall, he claims, implements the WordStar program according to the standard definition of implementation because there is some “pattern of molecule movements” that is isomorphic to the formal...
Article
Full-text available
We argue that atomistic learning, learning that requires training only on a novel item to be learned, is problematic for networks in which every weight is available for change in every learning situation. This is potentially significant because atomistic learning appears to be commonplace in humans and most non-human animals. We briefly review vari...
Article
In "On Begging the Systematicity Question," Wayne Davis criticizes the suggestion of Cummins et al. that the alleged systematicity of thought is not as obvious as is sometimes supposed, and hence not reliable evidence for the language of thought hypothesis. We offer a brief reply.

Network

Cited By