On token physicalism and anomalous monism

1983 ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Jeff Coulter
1992 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-100
Author(s):  
David Widerker
Keyword(s):  

dialectica ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Campbell
Keyword(s):  

Dialogue ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Kernohan

In a recent series of papers, Donald Davidson has put forward a challenging and original philosophy of mind which he has called anomalous monism. Anomalous monism has certain similarities to another recent and deservedly popular position: functionalist cognitive psychology. Both functionalism, in its materialist versions, and anomalous monism require token-token psychophysical identities rather than type-type ones. (Token identities are identities between individual events; type identities represent a stronger claim of identities between interesting sorts of events.) Both deny that psychology can be translated into, or scientifically reduced to, neurophysiology. Both are mentalistic theories, allowing psychology to make use of intentional descriptions in its theorizing. Anomalous monism uses a belief/desire/action psychology; cognitive science makes use of information-bearing states. But these similarities must not be allowed to conceal an essential difference between the two positions. Cognitive psychology claims to be a science, making interesting, lawlike generalizations for the purpose of explaining mental activity. Anomalous monism denies that psychology is a science by denying that psychological laws can be formulated. Davidson has other ideas for psychology connected with his work on meaning and truth. Hence, the title of one of his essays on anomalous monism is “Psychology as Philosophy”.


Philosophia ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 509-519
Author(s):  
G. C. Goddu
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-336
Author(s):  
Elisa Galgut

The author argues against neuropsychoanalysis by focusing on the metaphysical issues. Neuropsychoanalysts argue that the philosophical theories of dual aspect monism (DAM) and anomalous monism support their position. The author contends that not only do DAM and anomalous monism not offer support for neuropsychoanalysis; they are also inconsistent with its claims. The conceptual distinction between the mental and the physical — the so-called “epistemological dualism” cited by neuropsychoanalysis—stands as an insurmountable barrier to the project of neuropsychoanalysis. By way of example, the author offers an analogy with artworks. The author concludes the paper by arguing that neuropsychoanalysis deflects from the real project of psychoanalysis, which is the study of persons, not so-called “mindbrains.”


1999 ◽  
pp. 117-124
Author(s):  
Paolo Leonardi
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-388
Author(s):  
Jacopo Tagliabue
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document