Skip to content

The Criterion of Structural Fundamentality and Its Application to David Chalmers' Philosophy of Mind.

Vitalii Kablukov

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) June 6, 2026 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20573476 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Topics Philosophy of mind
Keywords Impossibility Consciousness Argument complex analysis Contradiction Mathematical proof Independence probability theory Ontic Epistemology Term time Key lock Ontological argument Ontology Representation politics
Key points Argues that Chalmers' key terms—experience, phenomenal consciousness, and qualia—admit coherent structural decomposition through previously defined concepts and are not fundamental, and that the zombie argument relies on an internal contradiction.

Abstract

This paper proposes a criterion of structural fundamentality for philosophical terms and applies it to the central concepts of David Chalmers’ philosophy of mind. A term is considered fundamental if it cannot be derived from previously defined concepts and is necessary for the construction of further structure. Four operational tests follow from this criterion: the necessity test, the independence test, the localization test, and the generative test. The criterion is first demonstrated on physical primitives — mass, charge, spacetime — which pass all four tests. It is then applied to Chalmers’ key terms: experience, phenomenal consciousness, and qualia. The analysis shows that Chalmers accepts the fundamentality of experience after the failure of reductive explanation without formulating a verification procedure. The impossibility of reductive derivation does not entail ontological fundamentality. After applying the criterion, all three terms admit coherent structural decomposition through previously defined concepts drawn from a minimal seven-definition system (Kablukov 2026a–d). The zombie argument is shown to rely on a contradiction internal to its own conditions. The hard problem of consciousness is not dissolved but relocated: from the question of why phenomenal experience exists to the question of under what conditions being gives rise to consciousness as the capacity to perceive one’s own reflection. This is a structurally different question at a different level of the system.