Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:13:45.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Philosophy of Mind

The Metaphysics of Mind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Janet Levin
Janet Levin
Affiliation:
University of Southern California

Summary

The Metaphysics of Mind presents and discusses the major contemporary theories of the nature of mind, including Dualism, Physicalism, Role-Functionalism, Russellian Monism, Panpsychism, and Eliminativism. Its primary goal is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the theories in question, including their prospects for explaining the special qualitative character of sensations and perceptual experiences, the special outer-directedness of beliefs, desires, and other intentional states, and—more generally—the place of mind in the world of nature, and the relation between mental states and the behaviors that they (seem to) cause. It also discusses, briefly, some further questions about the metaphysics of mind, namely, whether groups of individuals, or entire communities, can possess mental states that cannot be reduced to the mental states of the individuals in those communities, and whether the boundaries between mind and world are as sharp as they may seem.
Get access

Keywords

mind–body problemDualismPhysicalismconsciousnessbelief
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Philosophy of Mind
Online ISBN: 9781108946803
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 10 March 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, F. and Aizawa, K. (2009). “Why the Mind Is Still in the Head.” In Robbins, Philip and Aydede, Murat (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press: 78–95.Google Scholar
Alter, T. (2016). “The Structure and Dynamics Argument against Materialism.” Noûs 50(4): 794–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (2015). Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, T. and Walter, S. (2007). Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Antony, L. and Levine, J. (1997). “Reduction with Autonomy.” Philosophical Perspectives 11: 83–105.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. (1981/2002). “The Causal Theory of the Mind.” In Chalmers (2002a).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnauld, A. (1640). “Objections to Descartes’s Meditations.” In Bennett (2017).Google Scholar
Baker, L. R. (1987). Saving Belief: A Critique of Physicalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Balog, K. (2012). “In Defense of the Phenomenal Concept Strategy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Bayne, T. and Montague, M., eds. (2011). Cognitive Phenomenology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. and Mundale, J. (1999). “Multiple Realizability Revisited: Linking Cognitive and Neural States.” Philosophy of Science 66(2): 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (2017). Early Modern Texts. www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/descartes1642.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. (2007). “Mental Causation.” Philosophy Compass 2: 316–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, T. et al. (2012). “A Hippocampal Cognitive Prosthesis: Multi-Input, Multi-Output Nonlinear Modeling and VLSI Implementation.” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 20(2): 198–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. (1980). “Troubles with Functionalism.” In Block, Ned (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 269–305.Google Scholar
Block, N. (1986). “Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10(1): 615–678.Google Scholar
Block, N. (1998). “Is Experiencing Just Representing?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(3): 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, N. (2007). “Max Black’s Objection to Mind-Body Identity.” In Alter and Walter (2007).Google Scholar
Block, N. and Stalnaker, R. (1999). “Conceptual Analysis, Dualism, and the Explanatory Gap.” Philosophical Review 108: 1–46.Google Scholar
Bourget, D. (2020). “Relational vs Adverbial Conceptions of Phenomenal Intentionality.” In Arthur Sullivan, , Sensations, Thoughts, Language: Essays in Honor of Brian Loar. New York: Routledge: 137–166.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1993). “Shared Intention.” Ethics 104: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F. (1874/2014). Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint. Routledge Classics. Oxfordshire: Routledge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. (2016). “Narrow Mental Content.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/content-narrow/Google Scholar
Brüntrup, G. and Jaskolla, L., eds. (2016). Panpsychism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1979). “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4(1): 73–121.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. (2001). “Intentionalism Defended.” Philosophical Review 110: 199–240.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2: 200–219.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2002a). Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2002b). “Consciousness and its Place in Nature.” In Chalmers (2000a).Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2003). “The Nature of Narrow Content.” Philosophical Issues 13: 46–66.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2012). Constructing the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2013). “Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism.” The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 8: 1–35. www.amherstlecture.org/chalmers2013/Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1957). “Intentional Inexistence.” In Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. Cornell University Press: 95.Google Scholar
Chomsky., N. (1959). “A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.” Language 35 (1): 26–58.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1981). “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes.” Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998). “The Extended Mind.” Analysis 58: 10–23.Google Scholar
Conee, E. (1994). “Phenomenal Knowledge.” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72(2): 136–150.Google Scholar
Crane, T. (2006). “Brentano’s Concept of Intentional Inexistence.” In Textor, Mark (ed.), The Austrian Contribution to Analytic Philosophy. London: Routledge: 1–20.Google Scholar
Crane, T. (2016). The Mechanical Mind, 3rd ed. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1970). “Mental Events.” In Foster, Lawrence and Swanson, Joe William (eds.), Experience and Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 207–224.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1987). “Knowing One’s Own Mind.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 61: 441–458.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1981). “True Believers: The Intentional Strategy and Why it Works.” In Heath, Anthony F. (ed.), Scientific Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 150–167.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1988). “Quining Qualia.” In Marcel, Anthony and Bisiach, Edoardo (eds.), Consciousness in Contemporary Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42–77.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1637/1984). Discourse on the Method. In Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. I (1984). New York: Cambridge University Press:111–151.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on First Philosophy. In Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. II (1984). New York: Cambridge University Press: 3–62.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Author’s Response to Fourth Set of Objections. In Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. II (1984). New York: Cambridge University Press: 154–178.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Author’s Response to Fifth Set of Objections. In Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. II (1984). New York: Cambridge University Press: 241–277.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1643/2017). Correspondence with Elisabeth of Bohemia.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1649/1984). The Passions of the Soul. In Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. I (1984). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diaz-Leon, E. (2014). “Do a Posteriori Physicalists Get Our Phenomenal Concepts Wrong?” Ratio 27(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elisabeth of Bohemia (1643). “Letter to Descartes.”In Bennett (2017).Google Scholar
Feigl, F. (1958/2002). “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’.” In Chalmers, D. J. (ed.) (2002), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press: 65–72.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1978). “Mental Representation.” Erkenntnis 13(1): 9–61.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1995). The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frankish, K. (2004). Mind and Supermind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frankish, K. (2007). “The Anti-Zombie Argument.” The Philosophical Quarterly 57(229): 650–666.Google Scholar
Frankish, K. (2016). “Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 23(11–12): 11–39.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892/1960). On Sense and Reference. In Geach, P. and Black, M. (ed.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. . Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960.Google Scholar
Gassendi, P. (1640). “Objections to Descartes’s Meditations.” In Bennett (2017).Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1957). Mental Acts. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gendler, T. (2008). “Alief and Belief.” The Journal of Philosophy 105(10): 634–663.Google Scholar
Gertler, B. (2007). “Overextending the Mind.” In Gertler, Brie and Shapiro, Lawrence (eds.), Arguing about the Mind. Oxfordshire Routledge: 192–206.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2013). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goff, P., Seager, W., and Hermanson, S. (2017). “Panpsychism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#RussMoniGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. (1987). “(Nonsolopsistic) Conceptual Role Semantics.” In LePore, Ernest (ed.), New Directions in Semantics. London: Academic Press: 55–81.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1990). “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” In Tomberlin, J. (ed.), Action Theory and Philosophy of Mind (Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 4). Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview: 31–52.Google Scholar
Hart, W. G. (1988). The Engines of the Soul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1969). “Reduction: Ontological and Linguistic Facets.” In Morgenbesser, S., et al. (eds.), Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel. New York: St Martin’s Press, pp. 179–199.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1651/2014). The Leviathan. In Malcolm, N. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. (1986). “The Unity of Descartes’s Man.” Philosophical Review 96(3): 339–370.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. (1984). “Jackson on Physical Information and Qualia.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 34(135): 147–152.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. and Tienson, J. (2002). “The Intentionality of Phenomenology and the Phenomenology of Intentionality.” In Chalmers, D. (ed.) (2002), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press: 520–533.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. and Woodward, J. (1985). “Folk Psychology is Here to Stay.” The Philosophical Review 94(2): 197–226.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. (1875/2002) “On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata and its History.” In Chalmers, D. (ed.) (2002). Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press: 24–30.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1982). “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” Philosophical Quarterly 32: 127–136.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (2003). Narrow Content and Representation, or Twin Earth Revisited. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 77: 55–70.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1979). “Causality, Identity, and Supervenience in the Mind-Body Problem.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kind, A. (2015). “Pessimism About Russellian Monism.” In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (ed.), Consciousness in the Physical World. New York: Oxford University Press: 401–421.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984). “In Defense of Intentional Psychology.” Journal of Philosophy 81: 89–106.Google Scholar
Kostochka, T. (2021). “Why Moods Change: Their Appropriateness and Connection to Beliefs.” Synthese 198 (12): 11399–11420.Google Scholar
Kriegel, U. (2011). The Sources of Intentionality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Langton, R. and Lewis, D. (1998). “Defining ‘Intrinsic.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(2): 333–345.Google Scholar
Latham, N. (2001). “Substance Physicalism.” in Gillett, Carl and Loewer, Barry, (eds.), Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 152–171.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1714/1991). The Monadology. In Leibniz, GW. (2010, D. Garber, and R. ariew trans.) Discourse on Metaphysics and other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2007). “What is a Phenomenal Concept?” In Alter, T., and Walter, S. (eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press: 87–110.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2008). “Taking Type B Materialism Seriously.” Mind and Language 23(4) (September): 402–425.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2018a). “Once More Unto the Breach.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2018b). “Functionalism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/functionalism/.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (2020). “‘Phenomenal States’ and the Scope of the Phenomenal Concepts Strategy.” In Sullivan, A. (ed.), Sensations, Thoughts, Language: Essays in Honor of Brian Loar. New York: Routledge Press: 289–313.Google Scholar
Levine, J. (1983). “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64: 354–361.Google Scholar
Levine, J. (2010). “Demonstrative Thought.” Mind and Language 25(2): 169–195.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1972). “Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50: 249–258.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). “Attitudes de dicto and de se.” Philosophical Review 88: 513–543.Google Scholar
Lewis., D. (1988/1999). “What Experience Teaches.” In Lewis, D.. (1999). Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 262–290.Google Scholar
Loar, B. (1997). “Phenomenal States: Second Version.” In Block, N., Flannagan, O., and Guzeldier, G. (eds.), The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. Cambridgr, MA: MIT Press: 597–616.Google Scholar
Loar, B. (2003). “Phenomenal intentionality as the Basis for Mental Content.” In Hahn, M. and Ramberg, B. (eds.), Reflections and Replies: Essays on the Philosophy of Tyler Burge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 229–257.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (2002). “Comments on Jaegwon Kim’s Mind and the Physical World.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65(3): 655–662.Google Scholar
Lodge, D. (2001). Thinks. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. (2015). “Is Distributed Cognition Group Level Cognition?” Journal of Social Ontology 1(2): 189–224. De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. and Jankovic, M. (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (1987). Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books / MIT Press.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. (1968). “The Conceivability of Mechanism.” Philosophical Review 77: 45–72.Google Scholar
Manzotti, R. (2017). The Spread Mind: Why Consciousness and the World are One. New York: O/R Books.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. (1989). “Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?.” Mind 98: 349–366.Google Scholar
Melnyk, A. (2003). “Some Evidence for Physicalism.” In Walter, Sven and Heckmann, Heinz-Dieter (eds.), Physicalism and Mental Causation: The Metaphysics of Mind and Action. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2003Google Scholar
Menary, R. (ed.), (2010). The Extended Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Mendelovici, A. (2018). The Phenomenal Basis of Intentionality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montero, B. (2015). “Russellian Physicalism.” In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (eds.) (2015). Consciousness in the Physical World. New York: Oxford University Press: 209–223..Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1965). “Physicalism.” Philosophical Review 64: 339–356.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1974). “What is it Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83: 435–450.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1979). “Panpsychism.” In Nagel, T. (ed.), Mortal Questions. New York: Cambridge University Press: 181–195.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1998). “Conceiving the Impossible and the Mind-Body Problem.” Philosophy 73(285): 337–352Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (2000). ‘The Psychophysical Nexus’. New Essays on the A Priori. Boghossian, Paul and Peacocke, Christopher (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press: 432–471.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (2017). A Mark of the Mental. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nemirow, L. (1980). “Review of Nagel, T. Mortal Questions.” Philosophical Review 89: 475–476.Google Scholar
Noordhof, P. (2020). A Variety of Causes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pallies, D. (2021). “An Honest Look at Hybrid Theories of Pleasure.” Philosophical Studies 178(3): 887–907.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. (1987). Reality and Representation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking About Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D. (2011). Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitt, D. (2004). “The Phenomenology of Cognition Or What Is It Like to Think That P?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2009). “The Reality of Group Agents.” In Mantzavinos, C. (ed.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 67–91.Google Scholar
Place, U. T. (1956/2002). “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?.” In Chalmers, D. J. (ed.) (2002), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press: 55–59.Google Scholar
Polger, T. and Shapiro, L. (2018). The Multiple Realization Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1965). “Brains and Behavior.” In Butler, R. (ed.), Analytical Philosophy, Second Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 1–19.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press: 131–193.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60 (1951): 20–43.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rey, G. (1993). “Sensational Sentences.” In Davies, Martin and Humphreys, Glyn W. (eds.), Consciousness: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford: Blackwell (1993)Google Scholar
Rupert, R. (2009). Cognitive Systems and the Extended Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1927). The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schweikard, D. P. and Hans, B. S. (2020). “Collective Intentionality.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/collective-intentionality/.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. (2010). “Acting Contrary to our Professed Beliefs or the Gulf Between Occurrent Judgment and Disposiional Belief.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly Vol 91, Issue 4: 53–553.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. (2014). “The Crazyist Theory of Mind.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92: 665–682.Google Scholar
Seager, W. ed. (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. New York. Routlaege Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1980). “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–424.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1990). “Collective Intentions and Actions.” In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press: 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, G. (2000). A Slim Book about Narrow Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1980). “On Reasoning about Values.” American Philosophical Quarterly 17(2): 81–101.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (1959/2002). “Sensations and Brain Processes.” In Chalmers, D. J. (ed.) (2002), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press: 60–67.Google Scholar
Staffel, J. (2019). Unsettled Thoughts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stoljar, D. (2001). “Two Conceptions of the Physical.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62: 253–281.Google Scholar
Strawson, G. (2015). “Real Materialism (with new postscript).” In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (eds.) (2015), Consciousness in the Physical World. New York: Oxford University Press: 161–208.Google Scholar
Stubenberg, L. (2018). “Neutral Monism.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/neutral-monism/.Google Scholar
Theiner, G., Allen, C., and Goldstone R. L., (2010). “Recognizing Group Cognition.” In Cognitive Systems Research 11(4): 378–395.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. (2006) “From Extended Mind to Collective Mind.” Cognitive Systems Research 7: 140–150.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. (1992). “Visual Qualia and Visual Content.” in Crane, T. (ed.), The Contents of Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. (2009). Consciousness Revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, S. (1982). “Partial Character and the Language of Thought,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63: 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, S. (2007). “Property Dualism, Phenomenal Concepts, and the Semantic Premise.” In Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) (2007), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 210–248.Google Scholar
Wishon, D. (2015). “Russell on Russellian Monism.” In Alter, T. and Nagasawa, Y. (eds.) (2015). Consciousness in the Physical World. New York: Oxford University Press: 91–118.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1991). The Philosophical Investigations. In Anscombe, G.E.M. (ed.). Hoboken. NJ: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1992). “Mental Causation.” Philosophical Review 101: 245–280.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1990/2009). “No Fool’s Cold: Notes on Illusions of Possibility.” In Yablo, S. (ed.), Thoughts. New York: Oxford University Press: 151–170.Google Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, J. and Hawthorne, J. (2018). Narrow Content. Oxford:, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Metaphysics of Mind
  • Janet Levin, University of Southern California
  • Online ISBN: 9781108946803
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Metaphysics of Mind
  • Janet Levin, University of Southern California
  • Online ISBN: 9781108946803
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Metaphysics of Mind
  • Janet Levin, University of Southern California
  • Online ISBN: 9781108946803
Available formats
×