Skip to main content

On token physicalism and anomalous monism

  • Chapter
Book cover Rethinking Cognitive Theory
  • 31 Accesses

Abstract

The theory of token physicalism may be stated thus: for any given occasion on which you or I are actually in mental state M (say, in a state of pain), being in that particular mental state is identical to being in brain (or CNS) state S. There is quite a large philosophical literature dealing with this claim;1 I refer to it here as a ‘theory’ in recognition of its research-guiding function in some recent neuroscientific work. For example, in his paper ‘From Neuron to Behavior and Mentation’, Mario Bunge asserts that ‘thinking is identical with (reducible to without remainder) the activities (functions) of certain neural systems.’2 Bunge clearly had in mind here something like the case in which one may engage in ‘silent soliloquy’ or ‘interior monologue’. (We shall return to discuss interior monologue in detail in a later section of the present work dealing with ‘thinking’.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See, inter alia, David Randall Luce, ‘Mind-Body Identity and Psycho-Physical Correlation’, Philosophical Studies, vol. 17, 1966;

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas Nagel, ‘Physicalism’, The Philosophical Review, vol. 74, 1965;

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jaegwon Kim, ‘On the Psycho-Physical Identity Theory’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 3, 1966;

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Wiggins, ‘Identity, Designation, Essentialism, and Physicalism’, Philosophia, vol. 5, 1975;

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. F. Mucciolo, ‘The Identity Thesis and Neuropsychology’, Nous, vol. 8, 1974, and the collection entitled The Mind/Brain Identity Theory, edited by C.V. Borst (London: Macmillan, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mario Bunge, ‘From Neuron to Behavior and Mentation: An Exercise in Levelmanship’ in H.M. Pinsker and W.D. Willis Jr (eds), Information Processing and the Nervous System (New York: Raven Press, 1980), p. 14. Bunge does proceed to note, however, that neural processes cannot be exclusively constitutive of ‘thoughts’: he adds that their content is ‘partially dependent on what others around you and before you have thought’, (ibid.) leaving the theoretical door open for ‘social psychology, sociology, history, etc.’ (ibid.)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Saul Kripke, ‘Naming and Necessity’ in Donald Davidson &;amp; Gilbert Harman (eds), Semantics of Natural Language (Boston: D. Reidel, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., pp. 340–41.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., p. 341. (Because this is, I think, the crux of Kripke’s argument against any form of the psychoneural identity thesis, I have omitted any reference to his (risky) notion of ‘rigid designation’ in this connection, although it is obviously related to his view that scientifically defined indiscernibles comprise necessary (‘essential’) relata when confirmed.)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Donald Davidson, ‘Mental Events’ in Ned Block (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid., p. 117. Davidson is here attending to the basically Wittgensteinian insight that ascriptions of mental predicates to persons vary in respect of our assessments of the overall coherence of their conduct in its circumstances and in the light of standards of rationality therein applicable.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Sydney Shoemaker, ‘Functionalism and Qualia’ in Block, Readings in Philosophy. Shoemaker is careful to note that the ‘qualia’ problem does not involve most mental concepts/predicates. Indeed, as J.F.M. Hunter pointed out in his ‘Wittgenstein and Materialism’, in Mind, vol. 86, no. 344, October 1977, p. 519, forms of thinking have a ‘vanishing phenomenology’ when subjected to careful analysis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1983 Jeff Coulter

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coulter, J. (1983). On token physicalism and anomalous monism. In: Rethinking Cognitive Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06706-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics