DOCSLIB.ORG

Berkeley's Bodies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Berkeley's Bodies Berkeley’s Bodies by Johannes Hugh Hunter A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto © Copyright by Johannes Hugh Hunter 2013 ii Berkeley’s Bodies Johannes Hugh Hunter Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2013 Abstract George Berkeley (1685-1753) defends immaterialism, the view that there is no such thing as matter. In place of matter, what exists are only minds and ideas. Berkeley also styles himself a defender of common sense. From early on many of Berkeley’s readers doubted that these two commitments could be reconciled. I consider Berkeley’s joint commitment to immaterialism and common sense in respect of two philosophical theses. (1) Berkeley argues against a version of scepticism that bodies are single collections, constituted by many ideas placed in certain relations, and veridically sensed by finite minds. I identify these collections as Berkeley’s enigmatic archetypes. (2) Berkeley argues that finite minds are able to act causally upon their own bodies by nothing more than an act of will. Both of these theses are defended in the context of immaterialism, and Berkeley persuasively presents them as elements of common sense. I reconstruct Berkeley’s arguments for these theses, and suggest that he succeeds in reconciling immaterialism and common sense in these areas. My account draws on previous research, but I introduce a single mechanism to understand both theses. I call this mechanism overlap. On Berkeley’s view, finite minds represent bodies by constructing representing-collections that are intended to resemble body- iii collections. However, these representing-collections overlap with body-collections, meaning that they share members which are numerically the same. My account of (1) depends on the fact that sensed ideas are in the overlapping area, and therefore represent the body-collection exactly as it is. My account of (2) depends on supposing that the causal powers of finite minds are exercised on ideas in the area of overlap, and thus they act on ideas that are accessible to them but are also constituent parts of bodies. iv Acknowledgments a diis bonos avos, bonos parentes, bonos praeceptores, bonos familiares, necessarios, amicos, omnes fere habui… quod, quum animum ad philosophiam adjecissem, non in sophistam incidi. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Immaterialism ............................................................................................................................... 3 Works............................................................................................................................................. 7 Chapter One ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 The Sceptic ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Berkeley’s Defense of Common Sense .......................................................................................... 19 3.2 Berkeley in the Common Sense Tradition.................................................................................... 23 4.1 Berkeley’s Locke............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Berkeley’s Locke and the Primary and Secondary Quality Distinction.................................... 34 4.3 Berkeley’s Critique of Locke......................................................................................................... 39 4.4 The So-Called ‘Master Argument’ ............................................................................................... 42 4.5 Locke Saved..................................................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter Two................................................................................................................................ 50 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 50 1.2 Chapter Outline .............................................................................................................................. 51 2.1 How CollectionsF are Formed........................................................................................................ 57 2.2 One Collection Views....................................................................................................................... 60 2.3 Representing the Natural Order ................................................................................................... 63 2.4 A Case for a Second Sort of Collections ....................................................................................... 68 2.5 Textual Evidence for A Second Collection................................................................................... 69 3.1 Berkeley’s use of the word ‘Archetype’........................................................................................ 71 3.2 Archetypes in the Principles........................................................................................................... 75 3.3 Archetypes in the Dialogues........................................................................................................... 77 4.1 Divine Collections in the Principles............................................................................................... 80 4.2 To Blend, to Concrete, to Compose, and to form a Complexion................................................ 84 vi 5.1 How we Make Collections.............................................................................................................. 86 5.2 Epistemic Failure and Success....................................................................................................... 89 5.3 God’s Production of CollectionsD.................................................................................................. 92 5.4 Divine Collections Across Time..................................................................................................... 94 6.1 Some Problems................................................................................................................................ 96 6.2 Two Worries about the Role of God’s Perceptions ..................................................................... 96 6.3 Is my View a Version of Phenomenalism? ................................................................................... 98 6.4 The “Fleetingness” of Ideas ........................................................................................................... 98 6.5 The Heterogeneity Problem........................................................................................................... 99 7.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Chapter Three........................................................................................................................... 103 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 103 2.1 What is Willing? ........................................................................................................................... 107 3.1 The Occasionalist Reading............................................................................................................ 110 4.1 What to Look for in Berkeley’s Account.................................................................................... 116 4.2 Action by an Instrument .............................................................................................................. 118 4.3 Causal Remoteness ....................................................................................................................... 120 4.4 Acting on Bodies: the Textual Evidence..................................................................................... 124 4.5 How Does One Act on a Body?.................................................................................................... 128 4.6 Blind Agency ................................................................................................................................. 131 4.7 The Paralysis Case........................................................................................................................ 132 4.8 Divine Passivity............................................................................................................................. 134 4.9 Locke’s Legacy.............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bishop Berkeley Exorcises the Infinite
    TWELVE Bishop Berkeley Exorcises the Infinite It all began simply enough when Molyneux asked the wonderful question whether a person born blind, now able to see, would recognize by sight what he or she knew by touch (Davis 1960). After George Berkeley elaborated an answer, that we learn to perceive by means of heuristics, the foundations of contemporary mathematics were in ruins. Contemporary mathematicians waved their hands and changed the subject.1 Berkeley’s answer received a much more positive response from economists. Adam Smith, in particular, seized upon Berkeley’s doctrine that we learn to perceive distance to build an elabo- rate system in which one learns to perceive one’s self-interest.2 Perhaps because older histories of mathematics are a positive hindrance in helping us under- stand the importance of Berkeley’s argument against in‹nitesimals,3 its conse- quences for economics have passed unnoticed. If in‹nitesimal numbers are ruled 1. The mathematically decisive event that changed the situation and let historians appreciate the past was Abraham Robinson’s development of nonstandard analysis. “The vigorous attack directed by Berkeley against the foundations of the Calculus in the forms then proposed is, in the ‹rst place, a brilliant exposure of their logical inconsistencies. But in criticizing in‹nitesimals of all kinds, English or continental, Berkeley also quotes with approval a passage in which Locke rejects the actual in‹nite. It is in fact not surprising that a philosopher in whose system perception plays the central role, should have been unwilling to accept in‹nitary entities” (Robinson 1974, 280–81).
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Wisdom
    Modern Wisdom Jimmy Rising Philosophy is generally concerned with the nature of things: truths about reality, human nature, and why things are and do what they are and do. In this sense, philosophy fits its archaic name, “natural science.” Philosophy can also be described as the “pursuit or love of wisdom” (this is the origin of the word) and it is imagined that the philosophical life, a life characterized by contemplation and inquiry, is necessary to attain true wisdom. Modern philosophy, with its emphasis on breaking down old beliefs even more than con- structing new ones, is decidedly on the “science” side of philosophy. Nonetheless, I believe that all philosophers study the subject in part in hopes of understanding and gaining wis- dom. Every “advance” in philosophy as the natural science is associated with a refinement or change in the view of wisdom. For example, George Berkeley proclaims that philosophy is “nothing else but the study of wisdom and truth” in the introduction to his Principles, and then speaks hardly another word of the nature of wisdom. What is the wisdom of modern philosophy? More to the point, what is wisdom, according to various branches of modern philosophy, and to modern philosophy as a whole? 1 1 Definition of Wisdom To answer this question, even without trying to define wisdom before it’s definition is sought, we need to specify what we are looking for– that is, the indications of wisdom. Wisdom is: Knowledge – Wisdom, firstly, is a characteristic of the mind or the soul, not of the body. It is a kind of knowledge, skill, sense, or intuition the affects who one thinks.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Daniel Dennett on Free Will Skepticism Derk Pereboom(Α)
    RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA E PSICOLOGIA ISSN 2039-4667; E-ISSN 2239-2629 DOI: 10.4453/rifp.2017.0021 Vol. 8 (2017), n. 3, pp. 259-265 STUDI Response to Daniel Dennett on Free Will Skepticism Derk Pereboom(α) Ricevuto: 17 febbraio 2017; accettato: 24 agosto 2017 █ Abstract What is at stake in the debate between those, such as Sam Harris and me, who contend that we would lack free will on the supposition that we are causally determined agents, and those that defend the claim that we might then retain free will, such as Daniel Dennett? I agree with Dennett that on the suppo- sition of causal determination there would be robust ways in which we could shape, control, and cause our actions. But I deny that on this supposition we would have the control in action required for us to basical- ly deserve to be blamed, praised, punished or rewarded. In this response, I argue that this is the core issue that divides compatibilists and incompatiblists about free will and causal determination, and that the in- compatibilist position is the right one to accept. KEYWORDS: Sam Harris; Daniel Dennett; Free Will Skepticism; Compatibilism; Incompatibilism █ Riassunto Risposta a Daniel Dennett sullo scetticismo circa il libero arbitrio – Qual è la posta in gioco nel dibattito che vede contrapporsi chi – come Sam Harris e me – sostiene che non avremmo libertà di volere sulla scorta dell’ipotesi per cui siamo agenti causalmente determinati e chi, al contrario – come Daniel Den- nett – difende l’idea che possa darsi un libero volere? Concordo con Dennett circa il fatto che, anche nell’ipotesi della determinazione causale, resterebbe lo spazio per sostenere che per vari e importanti aspetti saremmo comunque noi a modellare, controllare e causare le nostre azioni.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Berkeley
    INTRODUCTION TO BERKELEY http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/ George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was one of the great philosophers of the early modern period. He was a brilliant critic of his predecessors, particularly Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke. He was a talented metaphysician famous for defending idealism, that is, the view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Berkeley's system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections. His most- studied works, the Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (Principles, for short) and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (Dialogues), are beautifully written and dense with the sort of arguments that delight contemporary philosophers. He was also a wide-ranging thinker with interests in religion (which were fundamental to his philosophical motivations), the psychology of vision, mathematics, physics, morals, economics, and medicine. Although many of Berkeley's first readers greeted him with incomprehension, he influenced both Hume and Kant, and is much read (if little followed) in our own day. 2. Berkeley's critique of materialism in the Principles and Dialogues In his two great works of metaphysics, Berkeley defends idealism by attacking the materialist alternative. What exactly is the doctrine that he's attacking? Readers should first note that “materialism” is here used to mean “the doctrine that material things exist”. This is in contrast with another use, more standard in contemporary discussions, according to which materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist. Berkeley contends that no material things exist, not just that some immaterial things exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses On some ancient and medieval roots of George Berkeley's thought Bradatan, Costica How to cite: Bradatan, Costica (2003) On some ancient and medieval roots of George Berkeley's thought, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4077/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk ON SOME ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL ROOTS OF GEORGE BERKELEY'S THOUGHT A thesis submitted by Costica Bradatan in accordance with the requirements of the University of Durham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy April 2003 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Declaration I declare that no part of this work has been submitted by me for any degree in this or any other university.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Michael Mckenna Department of Philosophy University of Arizona
    Curriculum Vitae Michael McKenna Department of Philosophy University of Arizona Social Sciences Bldg., Rm 213 work: 520-621-5045 Tucson, AZ 85721-0027 email: [email protected] fax: 520-621-9559 Education Ph.D., University of Virginia, Philosophy, 1993 B.A., Thiel College, Philosophy, Political Science, 1984 Areas of Specialization Research Specializations Free Will & Moral Responsibility Primary Teaching Competence Ethics, Metaphysics, Action Theory, Moral Psychology Employment Professor University of Arizona, Philosophy, Fall 2010 – present Center for Philosophy of Freedom, Arizona, Fall 2010-Spring 2018 Florida State University, Fall 2008 – Spring 2010 Associate Professor Florida State University, Fall 2006 – Spring 2008 Ithaca College: Fall 2001 – Spring 2006 (Chair 01-04) University of Colorado, Boulder (visiting) Spring 2005 Assistant Professor Ithaca College: Fall 1994 - Spring 2001 Bryn Mawr College (visiting): Fall 1999 – Spring 2000 Lecturer California State U., Long Beach, Fall 1993 – Spring 1994 University of Virginia, Fall 1992 – Spring 1993 Courses Taught: Graduate Level Moral Responsibility, Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Free Will: Compatibilist Style, Metaphysics and Epistemology: Core Course, Identity and Persistence, Moral Psychology Upper Level Dimensions of Freedom, Free Will, Moral Responsibility, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Moral Theory, Metaethics, Persons & Human Condition Mid-level Applied Ethics, Medical Ethics, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Autonomy & Responsibility, Philosophy in Film, War & Terrorism Lower Level Intro to Philosophy, Intro to Ethics, History of Modern Philosophy, Informal Logic, Existentialism Publications Books Authored 2016 with Derk Pereboom. Free Will: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge. 2012. Conversation & Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press. Books Edited 2015 eds., with Randolph Clarke and Angela Smith. The Nature of Moral Responsibility: New Essays.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason and Revelation in 19Th Century Philosophy
    Roots of analytic philosophy PHIL 3104 Winter 2010 David Matheson Tue & Thu 2:35-3:55 p.m. 3A45 Paterson Hall 129 Paterson Hall 613-520-2600 ext. 1928 [email protected] Office hours: Tue & Thu 1:00-2:00 p.m. Description In this course we will explore the roots of analytic philosophy by examining some central metaphysical, epistemological, and metaphilosophical themes from three of its founding figures: G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Background and context readings will be drawn from George Berkeley, F.H. Bradley, and Gottlob Frege. The main objectives are to engage the topics considered as live philosophical issues to be addressed in their own right, and to advance our own philosophical perspectives as a result. You should be prepared to do some philosophy for yourself in this course, not merely to memorize and regurgitate historical facts about what the philosophers we will consider said about the topics addressed. Readings and texts A number of readings for the course will be drawn from the following texts, which can be purchased at the university bookstore: Bertrand Russell, The philosophy of logical atomism (Chicago: Open Court, 1985) Ludwig Wittgenstein, The blue and brown books (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) The remaining readings, listed below, will for the most part be drawn from free online sources: George Berkeley, Introduction and §§1-33 of A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Berkeley%20-Treatise.txt F.H. Bradley, Introduction and Chapter IV of Appearance and reality http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Appearance_and_Reality G.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy.Pdf
    Philosophy 1 PHIL:1401 Matters of Life and Death 3 s.h. Contemporary ethical controversies with life and death Philosophy implications; topics may include famine, brain death, animal ethics, abortion, torture, terrorism, capital punishment. GE: Chair Values and Culture. • David Cunning PHIL:1636 Principles of Reasoning: Argument and Undergraduate major: philosophy (B.A.) Debate 3 s.h. Undergraduate minor: philosophy Critical thinking and its application to arguments and debates. Graduate degrees: M.A. in philosophy; Ph.D. in philosophy GE: Quantitative or Formal Reasoning. Faculty: https://clas.uiowa.edu/philosophy/people/faculty PHIL:1861 Introduction to Philosophy 3 s.h. Website: https://clas.uiowa.edu/philosophy/ Varied topics; may include personal identity, existence of The Department of Philosophy offers programs of study for God, philosophical skepticism, nature of mind and reality, undergraduate and graduate students. A major in philosophy time travel, and the good life; readings, films. GE: Values and develops abilities useful for careers in many fields and for any Culture. situation requiring clear, systematic thinking. PHIL:1902 Philosophy Lab: The Meaning of Life 1 s.h. Further exploration of PHIL:1033 course material with the The department also administers the interdisciplinary professor in a smaller group. undergraduate major in ethics and public policy, which it offers jointly with the Department of Economics and the PHIL:1904 Philosophy Lab: Liberty and the Pursuit of Department of Sociology and Criminology; see Ethics and Happiness 1 s.h. Public Policy in the Catalog. Further exploration of PHIL:1034 course material with the professor in a smaller group. Programs PHIL:1950 Philosophy Club 1-3 s.h.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Eastern Division 2019 Annual Meeting Program
    The American Philosophical Association EASTERN DIVISION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING PROGRAM SHERATON NEW YORK TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK, NEW YORK JANUARY 7 – 10, 2019 Visit our table at APA Eastern OFFERING A 20% (PB) / 40% (HC) DISCOUNT WITH FREE SHIPPING TO THE CONTIGUOUS U.S. FOR ORDERS PLACED AT THE CONFERENCE. THE POETRY OF APPROACHING HEGEL’S LOGIC, GEORGES BATAILLE OBLIQUELY Georges Bataille Melville, Molière, Beckett Translated and with an Introduction by Angelica Nuzzo Stuart Kendall THE POLITICS OF PARADIGMS ZHUANGZI AND THE Thomas S. Kuhn, James B. Conant, BECOMING OF NOTHINGNESS and the Cold War “Struggle for David Chai Men’s Minds” George A. Reisch ANOTHER AVAILABLE APRIL 2019 WHITE MAN’S BURDEN Josiah Royce’s Quest for a Philosophy THE REAL METAPHYSICAL CLUB of white Racial Empire The Philosophers, Their Debates, and Tommy J. Curry Selected Writings from 1870 to 1885 Frank X. Ryan, Brian E. Butler, and BOUNDARY LINES James A. Good, editors Philosophy and Postcolonialism Introduction by John R. Shook Emanuela Fornari AVAILABLE MARCH 2019 Translated by Iain Halliday Foreword by Étienne Balibar PRAGMATISM APPLIED William James and the Challenges THE CUDGEL AND THE CARESS of Contemporary Life Reflections on Cruelty and Tenderness Clifford S. Stagoll and David Farrell Krell Michael P. Levine, editors AVAILABLE MARCH 2019 AVAILABLE APRIL 2019 LOVE AND VIOLENCE BUDDHIST FEMINISMS The Vexatious Factors of Civilization AND FEMININITIES Lea Melandri Karma Lekshe Tsomo, editor Translated by Antonio Calcagno www.sunypress.edu II IMPORTANT NOTICES FOR MEETING ATTENDEES SESSION LOCATIONS Please note: this online version of the program does not include session locations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discussion on Berkeley's Account of Time a Thesis Presented to The
    A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Nicholas L. Shooner August 2020 © 2020 Nicholas L. Shooner. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time by NICHOLAS L. SHOONER has been approved for the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Sciences by James M. Petrik Associate Professor of Philosophy Florenz Plassmann Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract SHOONER, NICHOLAS L., M.A., August 2020, Philosophy A Discussion on Berkeley’s Account of Time Director of Thesis: James M. Petrik We examine what George Berkeley says about the nature of time and weigh two competing interpretations of his theory to determine which is closer to his intended meaning. Berkeley presents a theory of time that is idealist (time consists in ideas and their motions), subjectivist (time is contained within subjects), and relationalist (time is not an absolute entity, but is a description of the relations between events). While these features of Berkeley’s theory are not in dispute, there is a debate concerning whether he accepts an inter-subjective, universal ordering of events which grounds the temporal experiences of all human subjects. H. Scott Hestevold argues that, for Berkeley, such an order is to be found in the all-encompassing subject, God, whereas Darren Hynes argues that no such ordering is needed in Berkeley’s system. We evaluate these interpretations in light of Berkeley’s other metaphysical commitments and conclude that Hestevold’s interpretation is superior since it is better able to accommodate Berkeley’s commitment to the meaningfulness of temporal language in ordinary discourse and his commitment to the possibility and success of the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synthesis of Empiricism and Innatism in Berkeley's Doctrine Of
    Berkeley Studies 21 (2010) 3 The Synthesis of Empiricism and Innatism in Berkeley’s Doctrine of Notions James Hill Abstract: This essay argues that Berkeley’s doctrine of notions is an account of concept-formation that offers a middle-way between empiricism and innatism, something which Berkeley himself asserts at Siris 308. First, the widespread assumption that Berkeley accepts Locke’s conceptual empiricism is questioned, with particular attention given to Berkeley’s views on innatism and ideas of reflection. Then, it is shown that Berkeley’s doctrine of notions comes very close to the refined form of innatism to be found in Descartes’ later writings and in Leibniz. Finally, it is argued that Berkeley denies a principle common to both empiricism and innatism, namely, that all conceptual knowledge amounts to the perception of ideas. By denying this―at least in the case of the concepts of self, causation, substance, and virtue―Berkeley is able to provide a synthesis of conceptual empiricism and innatism. In Siris, Berkeley offers us a characteristically succinct reflection on his doctrine of notions: [Aristotle] held that the mind of man was a tabula rasa, and that there were no innate ideas. Plato, on the contrary, held original ideas in the mind; that is, notions which never were or can be in the sense, such as being, beauty, goodness, likeness, parity. Some, perhaps, may think the truth to be this: that there are properly no ideas, or passive objects, in the mind but what were derived from sense: but that there are also besides these her own acts or operations; such are notions.
    [Show full text]
  • ROBUST NONREDUCTIVE MATERIALISM Derk Pereboom
    ROBUST NONREDUCTIVE MATERIALISM Derk Pereboom, University of Vermont Journal of Philosophy XCIX, October 2002, pp. 499-531. Nonreductive materialism about the mental has been put on the defensive by a series of well-developed arguments against its central claims. Four of these challenges, each of which has been advanced by Jaegwon Kim, are especially prominent: the argument from explanatory exclusion against irreducibly mental causal powers; the contention that the nonreductive view is indistinguishable from the emergentism of Samuel Alexander and C. Lloyd Morgan, a position widely held to be metaphysically extravagant; the claim that the functionalism typically endorsed by nonreductive materialists is incompatible with irreducibly mental causal powers; and the argument that if mental state types are multiply realizable, they cannot be genuinely scientific kinds, for then they will be only as weakly projectible as the wild disjunction of their possible realizations. This last challenge is representative of a growing skepticism about arguments against reductionism from multiple realizability. I will first examine whether nonreductive materialism can finesse the explanatory exclusion problem. Subsequently I will argue that there are significant differences between the controversial sort of emergentism and nonreductive materialism, and that a nonreductive materialist need not be emergentist in this sense. I will then contend that a position according to which mental states instantiate irreducibly mental causal powers – the key feature of what I will call robust nonreductive materialism – indeed cannot be functionalist, but that there is a non- functionalist account of mental states to which the nonreductivist can turn. I will close by examining doubts that have been raised about arguments from multiple realizability against reductionism, concluding that the nonreductive view can withstand these doubts.
    [Show full text]