1. Coherence/Correspondence and Realism J. Scott Jordan Department of Psychology Illinois State University Normal, IL jsjorda@ilstu.edu

2. The Correspondence ModelR r Big Real Little Real Really real trees Sort of real trees Objective trees Subjective trees Observer-independent trees Observer-dependent trees

3. The Correspondence ModelBenefits:Corpuscularity Non-phenomenal thingness Newtonian causality Costs: Assumed Corpuscularity Assumed Non-phenomenal thingness Assumed Newtonian causality Radical Skepticism

4. The Correspondence Model Berkley: Empiricism = Idealism Quantum Physics: Context-independence Jordan: Corpuscularity requires non-process One should be radically skeptic about the existence of a non-phenomenal realm that lies behind and causes the phenomenal

5. Brains in a vat…. The Correspondence Model

6. Benefits:Corpuscularity Non-phenomenal thingness Newtonian causality Costs: Assumed Corpuscularity Assumed Non-phenomenal thingness Assumed Newtonian causality Radical Skepticism Epiphenomenalism: (Chalmers, 1996) (Chalmers, 1996)

7. Order I feel to be mine Order I feel to be not mine Correspondence calls it R: observer-independent objectivity Correspondence calls it r: observer-dependent subjectivity R is a scientifically non-testable inference derived from the coherency of phenomenology Coherence model avoids the R assumption, and remains ontologically neutral by taking process, or events, to be the one substance. The Coherence Model

8. Costs: No Corpuscularity No Non-phenomenal thingness No Newtonian causality Benefits: No Assumed Corpuscularity No Assumed Non-phenomenal thingness No Assumed Newtonian causality No Radical Skepticism No Epiphenomenalism

9. The End?