ing icing the thle’ tention aon oe st oF fc Talber than anther, and even causing Mn to ignore certain tt ster Te may at ec he tthe the enon vere by i teeny tat ones subsequent relations with objets. only “object” must be une Seno one tnt sft wells pete ones feta mas eer ote a el pr 16 ‘THE SIMPLICITY OF OTHER MINDS Bene ensrsncatcr aati aboot having « mind, one wonder aboct other. There is the doubtful as they s8y, “pvilge’ of “et acces to one's own mind, but the ex Gas of that ofthe teefore portly underprlged eter i Suppose to remain another mater: "Pas coher minds confusion, a confuenc of questions, ‘but here re principally these: I have a mind: dT know whether others do an if do how do T? oT have a ind, do others? This question ts backwards tuted ge eae an Le ober in hang mid? the answer supposed to be aif? That only Thave a radi nowadays not an waikely but an at est ltogeter pre Potewnn hypothess, for altogether expleable reasons, (To Roppose that reasoned answer to this kindof question cannot Tagen, canoteaerenty be asked for, fears dog ote day) 2 oly Ihave mind, then Tama wlguely unique beng ‘Tere f nothing wnique in merely belng unique: Meni! this apart, ll of ws ofcourse ae wique in that each of us as ate y prin he tad, Then of Fon ny Ral ls) reste ear. Sin ads (Ldn: Methen,1950) 28 74 dferatgesti onttitom we may often she opin, tet iT tony ne ih min wad bs How could one conchae that one was unique la having rind? The unlquene of the neal wipes ia fll at bon tetonstated over an again in he ols ‘espa Contests in spp othe encanta ach ofr (deta wie part) fs a nique genes conton Shy be addnced fom virus cent spies sod teas fran gmt, immune malo. Test han he rst step config the hypoth only have aad would be thst fd colby neant (afeentl fact and oer onfy 2 But what if here waren cevant ator? Suppose there wat an ote uch at haa were not only tba ts Buta never Otemiable piytlogeal ature we were tach complete Ses Forte suppose we blvd ave. Ay tdbta! vay, dplyed the tne copay mantel ss do Al cl oe ‘onder he hypothe that ony Tle end. utd ho the oe an Ios fron this Ido sada mtn id? "There may sc tobe vious ops hee: ys 2, ad sstaatnneny toa agro ne 2m a “The alae of sound tery a here, ap everwhere, coherence, complete, tnd simply acres a par 4 mater of wy bot pnatly male of cmisteney, end iba ten the tpyrogte legal legerdenaes fm hee spell ical fos plete lng 2 maser of ing apm he atclation of ear by mens ot appt ing ao tabudary hypotheses, perhaps anny anda blstons ar the cople svble nes of dpc 10 onthe obvious erly to emi you of thee ees “Th qutton sgn then i cll he ole ooe so Tl tee Mary, The Une of nad (Se Ya ee a 8 The Simply of Other Minds ay der only in thi do and he doe ot bave mind? Stppose we opt for ye Then Bow do we account for he fn tt sate flan? Why do Thnve» mind? Why does be tve a mind? Do minds fat come and goin the uve? Did tne st hagpen to light in my ead? I here no bat fo hi tet yes ar even mayb, an what el can one do ut rsve to xxapt the reaton, miracloos sd Snel, between the mind and the body anyonce of coe? For i nt at though on has or ievenMly to have any coherent theory ff he mind in independence of tho body. So thee i ooting thon eo then fam unigue in having mind then Y most be nie in some Further way. Of couse Lan Lam le othes In tat Tao have eacty the ain {have There seta {hod enon fo belo that noone ever has a brain exact the Eimsanyonechre Sal {ty that oly T have a mind actos ony Ihave ast the in Ido? I | argue hat ow shall T argue? For why Ah aving jute bran To ater so neh? What about sya, nye my he they dove mands ‘yon they and if dy do ‘What exacly is tho diflrzoe between any rain snd al exh wt aes ifernee Or even hye {On the Iypothss that ono i unique tn having mind, tanks on has ancl bon the sbjet st investigation, aoe Forth ios pst compel fo sche reference to and lance Ge Bnings of py cologt, psc, blogate arf only T havea isn #1 have wot meal bee in vest gated ded examined then tough sents may have Ultorred much thy ere aot ely to uve covered mach ‘tet conerned wit the min Trident evidence fot ery to dicover hee: Ard mort nyo wou com So thatthe hypothe thst oly he ara {ude hard fold And there lstralla mone ve ater rate 196. 1am not a niquely unique being in being a being with mind: others too have minds, But which? Tf we have minds then we have something ls too, But what? ‘Those with a brain af couse of the right sort and in the right shape, There is no problem, is there, of other brine? “Are ‘others brainless? does itch more than ‘Are they legless? even if its not exactly as easy to seratch if i does. In # nutshell there's their bala, being stimulated, responding, altogether well bhaved, exemplary, lt do they have nnd? To fin the aad in the brain fe the rab. To talk about the mind is primarily a fancy way of talking shout mental tates and mental evens (Uhemselvesfaney ways ‘of talking). Thre is relation between the mad and the brat tore carefully, thore are relations hetween mental events and neurophysilogicl events, between mental states and neuro physiological states, The evidence for this i today overwhelm fing and, on the hypothesis that Tam not wnique ia having sind, here avalable to me. 7. The futility ofthe hypothesis that I am unique in having 8 mind provides important support for the couaterthesis that others too have minds. But one is not restricted here to ela negativa. No hypothesis that stands up under investigation, consideration, stands alone, One holds another, and if they prove tenable fn time all tricmmat from hypothers to fact anyway fora time. (And that childish facts coatinwally decay in time to discarded hypotheses should prove no ease for di may.) ‘To the hypothesis that my mind and my brain stand ia sige nflant relation I conain the hypothese that my mind and my Drain stand inthis relation not because the mind is mine but because of what minds and brains are. And to these hypotheses 1 (as many others do) conjoin the hypothesis that among the others that have minds other animals ate to be counted. (Pos sibly man is the only conjectural beast, but one can have a rind without being remarkably speculative.) But to say that Iorses, dogs, rats, cas, cows all have minds isnot to deny that 10 The Simplety of Other Minds these Beings may have qualitatively radically different expe- eves from men “And to these hypotheses stil thers must of course be com Joined, What is in force and ative here then i nota silly single Inyothesis that there are other minds, this maively supposed tose somehow based on at unexplored snalogy. Tastead ne is Confronted with a complex conceptual scheme. The fact that there are other inde isan integral part of this scheme and at rent essential to it Aconceptal scheme such as this, commodious enough to ‘encompass rts and others, draws support from a malitade of ‘observations and experiments ‘The effeacy of asprin, mescal, opium Is then an eloquent testimonial fo the intimate relation between mid and body, ‘roves confirmation foreach of the conjoined hypotheses of The scheme, and so pateipates in the baptism ofthe existence of ther minds asa fact ‘ i Fat rats lend their weighty support: the urgent voluntary ‘emnd of the obese oveeater may be owing to hypothalamic ‘damage: “Control of feeding behavior inthe hypothalamus i locited in two ‘feeding centers in the lateral hypothalamus an tvo ‘sitlety’ centers n the ventromedial hypothalamus. Destruction of the satiety centers resulted in overeating and Lily, wlicress stallion of tee centers was followed by ‘esston of eating. Stimulation of the feeding centers on the ‘otter hand, led to eating, while their destracton produced a fomn of anorexia so intense that aficted animals would starve to death in cages filled with food”? ‘And then the experiments of other rats further bolster our fanilia scheme: “There are many indications that animals priblem-bor situations experiment with many salons. Thus ‘ne rat, in experiments withthe inclined plane box (Lashley ‘bsp in Raber Heer ad roan 8: Cen ‘he Poyilagal ele of Papo! Dnt (does Unser ot Won Fy wasp ateand Frang, 1919), originally opeoed the bor by an accidental fall fom the rot ofthe rstalning cage For several tals thereafter she systematically climbed tothe rot tnd let go, totaling’ more than go falls before the method was aban: dloned« ‘9. That ther ao other mind's certainly a fact of the day, Dut i is ace sta wo live dak ages, ou slack concepts ‘rumble, our concepteal schemes are gapped with riddles That {here i signa relation between he lad and the brain cam today hardly be doubted, but prciely what that ration {sis another matter presently not wn, Carrent attempts to idenily mental states with cerebral states, mental events with cersbsl event, can only be cha acterized as jeje and mingded: they reveal «fundamental failure of appreciation, afte ocasioned perhaps by a pro found misconception of the conceptial station A’ mental event of state ot identical with s not one andthe seine thing a, a cerebral ora neuropysolayeal evento state This ie seen at once once ae ser and appreciates the difrences betwen the relevant principe of ing idution. 10, In oflering a defense af ‘physieaim,” Quine has aimed that “If there ist ca for mental events and mental state, i rnst be just thatthe posting of them, like the potting’ of ‘oc has some nde tematic eoacy inte develop. reat of theory. But if a certain onganastion of theory i Achieved by thts posing dtincive mental sats and erate thind physical bchavion suey as unuch orgoniaton could be achieved by positing merely certain correlative physiological Sates and events stead" This ply fs worth considering, ‘Bough eadiy countered, foe serves to undertine the distin. tiveness of mental states and events, But st the riposte: one sight as poorly argue that if the posting of molecules has some Indirect Systematic eficacy inthe development af theory, AK & Lay, Ban Machen nd nlp (Now Yas Doe, wih 8 sees SW. Sun, Wed and Obj (Now Yok: Wy, fo), pt 8 The Simplicity of Other Minds scely as much organization cool be achieved by posting tery certain conltve tle objets lastead. Quine ad pe boly slates eit anyway; why ad the eter?” (25). Lit sbjecs eat anyway, why ald myrteions Htle con: Sguations? “For of course if there is a case for mental states and events, then no doub in some sete and a Quine dais, fe must be tht the psting of tem, lke the posting of molec, Bas seme systematic eeay in the development of theory. Bot i ‘ben follow thatthe posting of stntes and events of snather tend and character need besa efcacons. Obviously, he Dating of il objet of exentally the same Mind and cha tr as macro-hjet would not aly nat contbute to the trginization of quantum theory but would render Biter in herent. "What the case for mental states and events? A minute part cof certainly ists: oor payhologsal concepts are important Silty eves one on xin mn dnc 0 Sop cersin plyssogaly wale stimulations tog y Spa tint nach cae e eapertences the same fel. rhs thse nent evant sss By ying oe a tvold tying what anyway preetly appears fo be pentively tht, ht in each ve thse phy even cee ‘ur Consider pasta mena event, ty tat whi oc cars when oe i stung by a bee: oe experiences sudden SSarp pain,pethape of relatively shore darton, sy one oF tre'scond? Gar this prise ntl vet be tad ‘ith a particular cerebral event? Cabral events ae measured Fr'mileconde “One ofthe i gape im oor knoledg, ot Bed iher by physclogy ot by pychoogy, i an acciate tinespece decipon of central nervous fystem elected Sci and bebavor nthe ery short te interval, Psychol fits tnd to dea wth long carulatve phenomena, the Tele Sinan billons of shorten events Te clase lari totivaln-dtve stuesMhstate the pot even perp ‘lermination motor response esperinentsinvave a ong, 183comple, spatiabtemponl sequnce of still of unending ‘triy from onemillsccond tothe next”* ated of prior cerebral events one weet attempt todntfy ment events with prtinar collections of cerebral vents, the move woul! be somewhat more panble but stl ingle, Consider a repatbléevat, sy the feng af fetter touching ones arn one fst has tat fooling stone ine te gl ttt ieee he ey feeling. There is no reason to suppose that exactly the same collection of cerebral events recurred. a "or ft nowadays easeraly lar that ther sie reason to soppose that ny srt of point pont retin tits been the pt och by the feather an patel Spoton the bran. “Stimulation of he skin ta speci opot wil ‘foke responce ina mnch ager portion ct the somatisensory cortex than the fraction of in stimulated would lead one © ‘xpost on any simple point tent relatos” Secondly seablton ‘stidies have shown over and over again, conde: Abie potions ofthe bin ay be exced witht the ls of ‘pect functions Thus, in connection with patients who have Undergone hemipherctomy, ie found that Language, prs fd higher moorsemory etviog are" nallyprcered, Sthichever homspere i Temoved"* To suppose nt esac Tesame creel event rear the save mental events eer sbeequent to te hemlepheretomy would soem to be «come Petey unvananted apposition ore. general, anya Eemptea ntcaton of preaar mental events ih porte: ‘ar coreral events or with prea collections of cereal "ir G Ly, “Calas teen Newent he its Roker ine eno ae fit Sie Sve Si lg en ihe a te "ey ayes tl dy Wels ino Nabe, Co Lasaatan sd Dgesato (tn ‘in lhe el Schatine’ el Wonry op csp eas, ney MN 84 The Simply of Other Minds events or with particular collections of collections of cerebral vents and so frth runs afoul of the welh now fact of func: ional plasty: whether these be accounted for in terms of Lahley's "mass action” theory * or in terms of some current ‘esson ofthe standard Sherringtonian picture of central ner ‘You integration they seem efftvely to exclude from serious ‘Consideration all identity theories of mind brain relationship. 2, Mental events eannot be dented with cerebral events ‘But to abandon an overimple Kentty theory is not ipso facto to manufacture mysteries or substances. By the denial of iden- Lenton we are not therewith saddled with maltiple entities, ouble events. This dupicty of ontology is simply eliminabe "Any apple has of course « melecolar coosttution. So st has ‘been sad that "The atomic theory is allencompassing in the physical work; it Teaver no 200m for micro-objcts and cor Fiated macro-objects, the whole pont Is that a macro-bject ‘complex microstructure and nothing more” Brandt adds ‘hat “There isnot sina compulsion to identify stabbing pains With states of the brain” (69). Oa the contrary: the compalsion [Bquite the sume and to be resisted in either case Tila an apple in my hand; this apple snot identical with, {a bot one andl the same thing as, 4 particular clletion of tmoleciles, That cannot possibly be so: T do not lose and ac: {ure a now apple each time I tos ein ary yet the molecular Constitution of my apple fluctuates From toss to tose: the col fection constituting the apple at one toss isnot identical with the collection consitting the apple at another toss. Unless the transitivity of identity i to be ealled into question, this nota ease of identity ‘Then is my apple to be identied with a particular class of spatotemporlly ordered collections of molecules? But which ‘olections? (Exactly how many bais ean bak man have? Js BSE sis man en Won, ‘snr, eat, “Doo aout the Wnty Tiny" Sil He, ls Den of Md (Sow Yk Coe, 18), Pe 285water HOP A gas of lke water isnot gas of H,0. tit Ike water wate?) And one can bite an apple, but could ene bite tat cls of spatitemporlly ordered ellections of mole: tales? Or ent it in all? (Alernatively i i sometimes gested that the apple i Wena! not with a parla ea Econ of mlecdes but with a particular configuration of tolecles. The switch fom collection’ to ‘coniguration’ ee Complies nothing. the same problems tema: radically ferent principe of indiiduation are til avolved) 12. Applet an no more be Mentifed with ollections of mol cal thin mental events canbe Hlentfed wit ereral events Tut tat doesnot mean txt apples must be spiztalconcomi- tans of collections of moles. I tere no collection of ok ting in engin of enc, he tie isn apple dangling there "To eae something an apple ito employ sparta form of conceptalation® ty ca someting’ callecton of mole ‘le eto employ snoter, These fo foms of conceptual tion are two not one, but they are not totaly unrelated: fn tach case hat which concved off an ety of «sot ‘These to eles, so conceived, sre neither one aad the sane entity nor yet exely to dierent enti ‘hrf Hh cp lations ane oul hot id between entities would be that of entity the ety conceived of a Sm alpha proves toe dential mith, oe and the same as, that once asa beta, Atotersnpe relation would be that of Alference: the ens conceive fare not only the same, but the extence of one Is wholly Independent, diecly or inde rectly of the exstonce ofthe other, Between these two ex {rem thete are nmerable cass, and there one Bde apples snd collections of molecules, minds and bran. ‘a. Pychophysilogy ts that relatively new branch of sck- ence concerned with determining the specie relaons ota Ing between mind and brain Ts task sto Bod and state dyadic translation fonction, functions tat take ae argument ordered fils one member of wbich ranges over pytogeal matters, 186 “The Simply of Other Minds the other ove phystologial matters The fanetion of py Sephlogl dyadic wanton function Isto coodinate fool and’ pila! deseripins, referential ex ErZaons and forth, ands bridge the conceptual gap be- Fycen thse diferent forms of conceptuliztion “trident relation fs 9 snple translation function serving to confine diferent descriptions at the same conceptual Inel lels f no uty ia conection with expressions exemple {pig teiclly diferent forms of conceptalzaton. There & 30 rr to supe that an enttyfetion can be of ny te {yin pordepyolgy the fom of conception en Mat eo kel feet tal aby uh oy Jnerrelaton Thee i « vanaton function thst serve coordinate cu: ak shot apts with alk swt election and ong ths af tcc Tris not ¢smpl entity faeton™ Ht Complex and aifclt to sate. For, fom the pont of view of SSecoclies, tak about micocoies is inevitbly exces Thal dette! ee, ree, A poreslr apples not patio Shy fsptotenpoalyovred collections of males, leven if ere to bite so apple wosld not bet ite the ‘das but rater to sagment some member(s) ofthe cas but ef course the members of sacha clas, namely elections of ‘oles, ee not speciable* “Adequate tantatonfantons ate hard o ome by in po clophylog Infact none are own. The reasons for ths female ck of knowedge are Tergely bt nt exchavely Tetnologeal Ablation and stimulation ae the major methods cerca and neuophysalgal reach. The presently in ses Aa Dhaai Say of ‘Se Teun, Mit nd ack” Honk opt pe oss ine inl ct, at oe « "tc he lc, Prolene of Anil (has; Camel Univesity Prt a ek son we ei 7 Sd 1871 {| 4 superable problems posed by sch techniques shuld be bh wie think fattening detemin te foctn of he “ars pat ofa fllacle computer by examining th care ec pt allenic age fig wits lp and the eady undertates ta pakbon Ut the preset ste of telly notte nly sean {ity pod pase pychphlogea ns ‘ah Mibu oresng over, ope can make out an wn fortunate mentite toncoptal scheme gently ep toy. One can discern an internally structure, albeit fa rent set of oncept Thee sppers tobe oer tates tl of intentions, af motos, ef detamarenones, Ite ‘hme that gestae to Bo daembotied spt te death ssvo, the teleaththe sat of ght ageale the fees fines of ell Dcmboded spits fat bone Che lysioica sbjocts, need oot be caouce of ssesirnt fh deja wanton fictions ate mat one ale Feral ment cones orton dy th alr ay. The coment mentale sche i redally ging ope gan ‘Our intellectual concepts, thinking, planting ciperimesting alla tottering tllgece lobe nt inert a fen om ae fecha! marae ate eben ces prodins memories, comptes But wo doubts sed ters ey need py no i lcs ge om sess ten on wl 288 coMMENT: ‘Win svt of Z's interetng paper Lave no quarrel. The ent hry, no do ent compelling, ad, whl T dot Shere dopo fou “unforat™ mtate cor vl schemes tii for present purposes af He moment Sie impor is that 2 sem 2 far 8 Tanda i, tv the talon prolem of other mins to sor shri ‘What he says on this ead, however, compressed and apho- oh agnet ents ney sate am ‘mo means confent that 1 ave graped then Hence my Sra tn rest for ne Mit thr tan ed tics Do T know wheter others have mids? and if so, how do 17 The answer, ays Zi, easy, the hype at only he fea mind being nowadays pepoteroas Why 98 Zi hs to umens Fi the hypotese that only he (or 1 has mind Sree fori | (orbe) alone have amin, then there mst, te some further relevant diference between me (ae my body) fd others but no ich diferenen can be found. And soc tel he sys there le ch confirming evidence for ur “con epi scheme a conjunction of hypotheses one onfenct of * rey lan he tele, om Th a of Fo baer toe 389