Donald Davidson

"Mental Events"



Me ntal eve n L<such as pe rceivi ngs, re me m bcri ngs, decisions. and actions resist capture in the nomelogical net of ph)'Sical theory.' How can this fact be reconciled wilh the causal role or menial e ve nL<· in Ihe physical world? Reconciling f reedorn with causal determinism is a special case of'he problem ifwc suppose that causal delerminism entails caplure in, and freedom requires escape from. ,he nomologica.l-nel. BUI1.he broader issue can remain alive even for someone who believ es a COITCC1 all.llysis of free aCIion reveals 00 con fiicr with determinism, AIllonom)' (freedom. <elf-rule) mayor may nOI dash wilh determinism; onoma/r (failure 10 fall under a law) ",,'il would seem. another maiter, I !Un from the assumption 1M' both tne causal dependence, and the anomalousness, of mental events are undeniable facts, My aim is therefore 10 explain, in the face of apparent difficulties. how Ihi.' can be. I am in sympathy wirh Kant when he says. it is as impossible
for the subden philosophy iii for the com.moReS\ ~nin£ loafl,ue freedom 1'R'1.r. Philosophy must lh«e(or'(' itS5.ume tlul no {rue eonlr1;diction will be found Ixl""~n freedom and nau.lral n~ilv in the same human :lC'lion'S.. for il cannot live up K;iu of p.a,turt: aoy mor~ than IMl of fretcom, HcnC'C even we ~o'Llid never be .ab1~ to ccneeive how freedom is po~blc. a1 leMt lhis appaun\ eeruradlcuen mu:s\ 'Ix con\';n'"tngJ~ eradicued. Far if the 1hought orfreedom conU'-;;Idicl,!; itSC'tr or n3lurC' •• _ it 'WOuld ha ...: 10 be: surrendered in {,ClfT1pe~hjo"~·i'h !

is closer. anomalv,

since K~nt






natural necessity.}

Generalize human actions '0 rncnta' event s, substitute anomaly for freedom. and this is a description of my problem. And of course the connection

~O\l,,: tet rne trvrc formulate ,3 Hale more care(uli) -Ihe .",appare·nl conlr.ldiclion:·_aboul.mental. .. 'onB rhat I want 10 discu .. and ~n.U~ dissipate. It rna" be seen as stemming from three principles, The 6m principle asserts that at leasi some menIal events interact causally with physical events, (We could call Ihis the Principle of Causal lnteraction.] Thus (or example if someone sank the Bismorck. then various mental events such as percci,·ings. notings, calculations, judgments. decisions. irnenuonal actions and change. of belief played a causal role in the sinking of'the Bismarck. In paI1icular, I would urge that the factlhal someone sank the Bismarck entails (hal he .rnoved his body in a way Ihal was caused by mental events of celtain sorts. and thai rnis bodilv movement in turn caused the Bis",orc~' '0 sink.' Perception iltustrares how causalily m3~ run from the physical 10 the menIal: if a man perceives that a ship is approaching. then a ship approaching mUSI have caused him 10 come '0 1><1; -e Iha, a ship is ap.. proaching. (Nothi"g depends on accepting lh ese as examples of causal inlo"cllon.1 Though perception and acuon provide the most obvious eases '" here mental and physical events interact causallv. I think reasons could be given for the view ch,:n all mental events ultimately. perhaps through causa! relarions with other mental c\·~n'~, ha ~ causal intercourse with physical events, But if .h -rc arc mental events that have no physical events as causes or eflccts, the argurncru ,,"'ill nOI touch thorn. , The second principle i:\ Ih3l \..'here there is causalitv, there must be a law: events related as cause and effecl fall under "ricI deterministic laws. (We






and J.

W. Swanson.

eo'S. Amt'1etst= UniYef"$ity

of Massal:hvsens



lIP. 19-101, Copyrighl@

1910 by The U<liversityol M"~""s

Pross. Reprinled .n,h pem-o,,,",,,,

. 5' W.Jint.. assurnplion.>0"."~:Otd$. however.. icv. whe n<ver \h e y 3r. rule out predicates Ihal ar.' ph)~icat if it i describable in a purely ph~ical vocabutarv. the plavin g of the 1968 Wcrl d Series. cssenliaUy Ill~ Kantianline. when Ihcy O!iI'ur io eonle. nor exclude Ihem.. that all three principles art true.:":rHJI descri nol' l:>o..Jl ~ t:. .I\..Cn tal a t'ld ~he physical thal contains.. since .. chose f'li~ked n ~h::u eontai n r 1. events..11\ physical events.:!.r j MINCo AND 800 y: TH!:. the havmgs more besides rivcly 2: .c'~ 3.1 vocabulary... theory that identifies at least some mental events .:J L~I k. sup."'cnlS... this is not 'lui '0 the pri neiple of Ihe anornali s rn of'he mental...}~.k down. subjC'Ctl~ \dl..1. with or .. I The assassioaunn of tho Archduke Ferdinand the event that started the First \Vorld War: The erupiicn Vesuvius in A. Events arc taken to be unrepcatablc. The last pan tries 10 "how that fnom the fael Ihal th •..jH Brcn tar.:riPW:H'I kS m.l does it mean to say thar an event is men.~ iii or open ~ J'hlt ('Ori:JHlin} formal unless ~h:Ji~an C-'" i:~. The second pari. together imply that at least some mental c .. Gridley.percei vi ng.on!r:adiclion The thoor.principles..ml.nOl preci_'S<:. ~.~ of pro\'iding a On the pCt .. 3nd-!h..: be t~::" would ~:m !5. that of C3usal interaction.!} . no'· place at Noo sa Heads..uchlheories can Carne onl)' f'om 'he dis· Cov< ry of psychoph y..1n be predieted and explained on rhc basis oll.''''' of us premise...SC'S.g1j)~:5hlll~ e fcatu ~ arc.while the pri neiple of 110. But the predicate '. pOri for .. bUI this will MI help since everv e vem is trulv describable' either by . wi 11b< >ho "m co . look place at Noosa Heads' belongs 10 Ihe physical vocabulruy. and "unbu. argues that there can nOI be strict psychoph~· .umen. Irue eve ry ev en I..ume 110t a the predicate .. . 50 a~ t I. __ Nevertheless it is. are unsupported.. e m. under discussion is sileru about pro". s.. on: the' oo~is of . \look place 31 Noosa H.isu:ru '-"ilh one a nether.'rcnll..Y be jfne""led to leam how 1 h cv may I>:reconci Ied and thal Ihey SIO. m. "·s. 'II· The Ih ree pri "ci pie.9.JHy. so Ih at .)' call those verb. -ithcut argurneru...ds· or by ·x did. 'he (firsol bin h Or dC31h ora [.he idonoilY 'heory of 110... curn:..j This principle .::! Thi.principles do Icad 10 a ccntradicuen. .l? One natural answer is thaI an event i. i(:w 0 r tot. or ph~~iCl. will I>: treated hoc" as an assurnpnon.re ps. cal Laws..... h.1 1100)" .d Ottare lny. Ih .au~.. if Ihese differ from ind. or and lh:u ("nt.~p. comments Dr. b...'~.. II i." A different acprcach is needed.lL. b r ro! il-s:on : IS si.. . nor. whet h. rr-· meml>:rin&..ng prio renee true of t 'S. i.~a=~.ical I.t did or did nOI lake place at Noosa Iieads' i.. ical. uri f this is taken 10 sullIiesl Ihat an even! is ph) .:kC''': t-! 'COI.h. doubtful i$ .rC::J1 character c.·.ncil. T n i~eri tenQn is .he pr·o".~ ~j) r.e not followed by em Ixdded scnlenCCS..5 'Lt~ p:.~. rccr s.'en ...1 n~ J do no l want lo indudo Ihese .·.tbcugh l shall: :s:ir something b)" 'IoIo-ay interprctarion.en<ional rHo knows Pari.. S..J.)bli... a'('l are d ("omnkled bv embedded . d by 'he facllh..11 of the nomolog.lt C\'CO SOme-one unpersuaccd of the Irulh of ....e or r. no inher c.re can be no $l riel ps)'choph ysieal 10""'1. seem lrce rrot same -should c:J. is M' or a J.. b!Jl tt ...allhey :some limes fealure in. j. e. y 01.l.'10 'rtSI lhc "... of COUiSC...J"·. or Ihe h isroric u ncrancc or 'Ih C' ...-idual c. sa y...rt5 .:nowi ng. and 'he ph)~icallhal shews how the three principles may be reconciled.lll~ TrLl5.!:-. rn.hcori ...~_b. and our Olher IWo principles. e~'(!'nt C:3PH. must be done is tcexplain away Ihe appearonce of contradicricn.:~ catl U·. pll)lsical . mental Ihal express propositicnal attitudes I'ike I>:lieving_ inlOnding.... dear tha '-hi.~ conlexts. sc "" arises for SO m eone who is inclined to 3C'C'i::Pl \h~ \h. mental events arc identical ..! ruTc.... of menl. Finally.j_"l'l'_p~j~n. ). cxamptes (lru. may tC'rt' this the Principle the NI~mologlc~1 Character of Causaluv..J~.la_ ~.lhcn .d -p..nl~t1ce$ in which lho U\U.i .na. bu\ on =nabl.H! t. An allCm~li"e charnelcri2:.h~ parts. Ihe mooo· may I>: =s)...<iSlen I "". xept lWO Sl:lfS In....ul..tl$Cl migllllx-: The dealh of Seen = 'he dentb of the author of ~at-cdr)'.0 also must 'he predieatex did net lake place al Noosa Heads' belong to the physica. of <ubslitulion appear 10. ancrn . menl." 11:0con "". and . and some foe.ily frame idcn.ired cia.G."!nr. a ... dated indl'"idu3ts such as the particular eruption ora volcano.. '5~:ln. ..•• good one.· .rtt assumplions Of prine-irks.)l.the cause of the destruction or 'Pompeii.ily statements aboui individual evems.JI !~ ~.. SUCh vcrbs a". no lici n. or COUnI2. a mal ism 0 f rhc M ental]. "proof" of the idemity Iheory will beat best conditional.("c b. if Ihe a".: L rhyslc:!: I"i'thers.. Tho parad O.onsislC"ncj' js..:nh..-it"\.:llly rrue of every eve nt. The ~m pan describe s a version of the id. and the argurnent for the .if SO"'e physical predicate is true .1 ..I::JlI~. cOmmOn 10 "Hif!\' friend. mental if describable in mental terms." W. migh. natural to reason that the flrS1 \~'O.II~ the three principles. "'0 can infer the rruth of 3 version ofthe idenlity IhC"OfV lhal is. 19 .!!:.: ·He porcoi.b.. The restof this paper f"U. then there is ihe following difficullY.' or The' lhlfd principle is that there arc no strict deterministir taws..) ~PC. charnCleri. ofidenlil.) I1olleucn-sio. ..nlily theory of the men ta ...0 on. nopi ng.. :-_~: - !:IPP. . the view (hal the three. into .1h o nc.."~"ion of .. l ~ona I iI('UOrtS or the mental ale tor the even.premises arc added. Accordtr1[! ro this. Ce'.5 men: iak'. MENT A.·. laulologi..~~C: . sen· t( nces "71t h SU bjtttslhat refer to pc:~ons. an Olher by descnbi n~ .li[y."""10 esl. 1 wish io d i.)! 'verbs might be Ih.hird may be foulld less than conelusive. r men tal or ph Y' ical..1 may fire when read ~. It 'I~ tess mort.holorjcal verb< as used when they ereate _ _ 'p. ic-h menial h e vents Can I>: predicted and explained [the An.. '"tnl~ C. m3.. IHt'ljU: l"l~nllr:2lld O' comams :i~ le. and who Ihink~ thr-~ are incon!i. p. or or vocabuia ry be I. d ~si ring..•lism of the mental dcni es _!hiD.O. 'Bl!.h a .00. everus Ih:n h matic of rhc f«ling 0 . entails il. As<..alion of dc.-< 'hl1 are fully . should 1a. WlU. like the first..3. 11 seems to rne.j...itt. The inr.

m USlnt ·1 f I n Iht5C.1 has ~ menta! description.v such that P.\" M' a mc'mo_Jdf!.ic. "II is easy to sec why this is so: unl~ss a giv.ha{ a scnsauon i~. intuitive concept of the mental."c::~ or th. the idenlilY theory presupposes correlaling laws. proposed IOSI of the mental. agrees with protagcn. Of an open sentence of the: form 'event . II is loss important to characterize 3 physical vocabelarv because relative to the mental il is.h31 correlations or '3\""$ Can be C"Stablishtd linking cvcms described 3. to the same event" if and only if Q ~ b and the property of be.a description is mental Of physical.· ical. I :I. suggests lha\ FO and ob "describe or refe. quotation is perhaps 10 be understood as sa~'ing that for every Lightning.. the criterion aetuallv covers not onlv the ha vi ngs of pai DS and an. bu t my present interest is in noticing zhe inlr'i(. We can is...is Ihal all menl. may be pinpointed as the same lime that Jones notices that II pencil sums '0 roll across his desk. . The collis.'''(n t Qy . and regrets (or I.we rna" say that an event is mcmal if and only if.peak of an individual event being "invariably accompanied" by another.\" is simultaneous with Jones' noticing that 3. (The". but m more beside s. The "cry possibililY or such. I think] 10.:dly equivalent to One not containing mental vocabulary..IC.I_IC'S.U 1Lil'Un in& is an electrical d i!.onali. .on has now been picked OUIby a mental description and must betoOUOIe<! as a mental event. There i. (lure are r:ollwothin.. However.:.'en mooting iii general identilY between the two.1 con lain only rbe physical vocabuiary essen. thcorv is e-a..nlS.. Whal can "a gi . This particular rime.houglt.\10'" that there maybe iden IiIy without correla ti ng 13" -s.t or The lasl sentence Orlhi. event.. subj-CCljvC: or irnmarerial. Kim. brain process. recessive in determining whether . 0 n e m en tal verb csscatiall 'Y. Is it obvious. but thai it Clhibilj what Brcntano called internionality.'agcs. ·crs-ionof. SO to speak.os: One \hi ag.fcriplioIP or a m{'nla' open sentence if and only if the expression \1\0' replaces 'M' Co n tai ns a I leas. He says. with the conditions of individuation $(X:Cifted in such a wa)' thaI any iden\ily implies a correlating low. Taylor is evidenlly thinking of events of a given kind. brain ~:1I"0(..uion ro confusion in the statement JUS! quoted.. nash there exists an electrical discharge to the earth from a cloud of ionized . Thus intentional actions arc dearly included in the realm of the mental along with Ihoughts. for example. Wha' would matter would be f3ilure 10 include bon:il fide mcnl::J.of iighln inK a.nSC'ofnrla idcnlit~. Take some event one would imuili''ely accept as physica'.he identity (hcor~: that denics um thcrc can be strict laws: connec-tin£. there is no ground for c: . Here we have an honest on . described scitnti6ully as an eteeidcal di5Cn3f'&(: to the (. Physical events art those picked Out by descriptions or open sentences Ih.gs: . but of !his Ihcrc. and other unimerpreted sensarions.sih obscured by the Wily in which Idenljl~· thecries arc commonly defended and anackcd. lO have an ontologv of events..hould be true of reoorts of raw fed s.nd an eject rical discharge . will be some comments pl'CSC. er molecules with n which it is identical.en mental event is: in1. Bill if the only identities arc of kindS of events. if there arc any. or Ohe description operator not being primitive] if there: is a menial of)::n sentence true that event alone. wnich is.. t.. Charles Taylor. and of others. II flash of U&hl nl ng.. we can also see how there could be identities without correlating laws.n!lyon the nature Of'3 physical voeabutarv. say.S mental wi. This strategy will probably work to show every event to be mental: we have obviously f.r and ... One 6nd$lhe same tendency to build la" -s into the statement of the identh theory in these I~pical remarks: . It would be inmuctivc 10 Iry 10 mend this trouble.3 . the m~n13.iled 10 C~pIU'."3rillb!y accompanied b: a given.. Taylor goo. I warn to describe.)'.1 C'I.) On th.. hopes.) No .oC'hargc. and the same .THE MENTAL-PHYSICAL CONTRAST 249 LCI us call a description or the forrn 'the event that is: ~. for example. mental event" mean tK:re"?Not a partieen ular. the disunguish ing U re of Ihe me Illlli is not Ihat it is private. SO "' tore le ou I cases where Ihe descri ption Of open sentence is log.l events arc identical with ph)'siear events.3nl"l ueh nash from I cloud of ionized ""'1IC!r mol~\. There must be a purely physical predicate 'px' true ofthis collision.•ngcr.. however. .h evcms described as roh.SIS oridcnlilpneOrits Ihat the sole "ground" to« accepting such theories is the supposition .ion of lWOstars in distant space. on (correcuy. The distant >1<1tar collision is thus th« event ..ing F = the property of being 0. sense data.j and the physical. colli.. u .. or Or rea\ afford Spinozistic extravagance with (he: mental since accidental incursions can only strengthen the h)'pothe.ri '. \I.hc events lied 10 these). blJl true only this. iers sa)' Ih.. that [ccling a pain or seeing an arterimage will count as mental? Sentences that report such events seem frec rrom taint of none xte ns... for it would nOI make sense 10 . tolOlL of individual events and can make Iiteral sense ofid<nlily.ially. hut il is not neccssary for presen: purpose s.. Whal may seem doublful is whether the criterion will include events that have oflcn been considered paradigmalic of the menial. (EsSOn Iiall v. Ih. one at the time it occurred..:cms to be no d. and presenlly 10 argue for. dated. It is Possible. for ex ample. pencil starts 10 roll across his desk. but these comments will fall far short providi~g a criterion .

.. \ ht:n: mu5'! be . ":_~:. which . ild cco Th is 10Mcxa m 1'10is in useful analogy ""ith the r'lJITCI'LC(1. or all open semen ce 'F.g in some mental respect. rejects rhc another way.s.: so fcnh. assert.\')1Tinru". interactionisrn.r'Io'enie:nce of lhis kind dots nol entail I:an be no phy'Sical op.ons.i1F1:.~ ph~"1ical open mental .". correlated are one (materialists belong in alone.' No wonder K. as a rnaucr of!.o~-.f· irate (a predicate of l).-.:n scnU:ru::c . for events are mental . ·... Ih3. and (his '1.' 1~ p-n n IS id~ 1"1 LLea' with bra in S...:~p!Jnal.!.s. ".C'al laws.n individual :".. which classifies the position I wish guistic: and so events can instantiate laws.llho". b~' p$ytl\oph)~ical serves of scicm philosoph:::rs.m.1. tension as a mental predicate .w" in rhe form ~1:~ ':.idenl how anomalous mo"'''i:h combines ontological dualism with the gen· nisrn reconciles the three origin.. B d<cidin~ net I in terms o~-1h thudes. Depenpressed.011) expressions ~b::i.:::· .:f'. described.1dil~ B.:~ Or s.1 law... It should now be .-.m··~ in any case it is not apL to "ns.=-"--?'.cugh the position I describe denies there ~--: ~:'hophys.ri~nt.3 cannot in general be done. !cally irreducibl mcnts relating -menls~lti..'..dcpcndcncc of claims about I.soc-iatcd correlation. does not seem 10 merit the. not lhc.r~.-:. In t: is no clear b\.~.ily bu. arc physical. two events alike in all physical cannot (under scme natural assumptions) contain ~~l5 but difTcrin.dul.') it is possiblr to pick out..al everu ".roiRinlli..~f 'J"3 in i.bc:1V..:-:c. they have descriptions th.'CC n 0C"t1.' en".h~· or to admit.Vhert t:-. and :: c·". .~ The Ih«i.11:11 Inc of the ph~skal vocabulary as the cntiro vocabulary 1'1.!._-~". Tarski proved Ihal a consi stenllaogu. events described as mental.J M'"cnC'C.B.''::: kljl).uojn:'JI verve the: tNiUF tcrnaticn. which comhow COm piex. arc lin~ .~ monism.:u'y eonsort of lawless monism under considceaticn..-. we :-::~-~ ~('ducc moral properties lo descriptive. lhe n we wou Id expect a proo f the re ::-:. slate. ( erned by theor be di'Silin~~.v is 411' where '41' is replaced bv a "physical" pred.I: the o\\'n Syol3).: ."t:<.tl of the pcin-braln 5-Ul<.m thai all events are physicaL bu..dtnlil'! ls.. l ndc..nC . world of syntax. i.II p.::om:s!ous monism resembles materialism in laws.. L' is l augmented with the" truth pred~r.. who deny this.\IO..al propeny. 10 icate' 'truc-in-t.. eral statement b"\A'!ikr must t isrn does r.\:' true of all and only Ibe true :.1: make the situation clearer to give a fourhence L. s the subject. but a complex neural event... t:1:l1 mental characteristics are in some sense mental amid the physical.B ..J~ ." In L (and L: m..a1 bih'~ arc nOt/aLLhke If by ab.l principles. of L.:).. Theories arc thus divided ... between the pl.aving some mcnL.1" of causalil~ instantiates a 13"". on physical charactermnntical in 3.I1~ considered essenual to materialism..u ical is djff~i"efL' possibilir. rhe existence of psythai applies to all and only the true sen tc nee. as nothing. Such supervenience might ~ taken to mean strained. a n~ct's.to four scns: Nomo/agicol nrallism. ofhraln.11 eo events Ih. should not be ~3.3t LnStanlt. ':. • Thus. nom%gical dualism. deals with events in extension and is therefore .urdly I On 3 nonnocha lion • we would than roughly If Do we.MtND AND SOOY "':""":-.nC.) "o':r. only as those events an: described in one or '-' :l:..-:~. The prin~. bUI if" i. illnal:. each sentence in th!' "~e:n mental and ph}'Sical events Ihat emphasizes extension of the truth predicate."" and claims ieru there exists no predicate or syntax (of the :" deMII)' On the one hand there arc these who "physical" vocabulary).. assum( ""-: :1' plici'd<".. On the b.J:Hs. no matter ~-:.J. as..ot rr eral the ~roun. of the '. US". "logICal bias only in thai it allows the po$.im says: _ II . :. cccee m Il3 nee. there could be • and one phys. we can pick OUt ."." .Ci!-----O r..c?h. Thln]. this there is. has.l In fact. .-.: Id~n'i1y of the properties in turn entails c» FX ~ G-.<! I. Anomalous monism shows an cinle or the anornalism of the mc:tua' concerns 'c.1 (Canesianism). The principle or taU531 interaction .i'til even IS art13eiiiiCaTWiillpnys..!..."(. . Such a bland monism.. with a definite :.1:~ :5:l object cannot auer in sorne mental resoect sentences of thai language.t L:'lls for all ~"t J..:.(\"C1 ducibility of Ll1 proof: and 'he For If anomalor every ml!rHJI cv or On IY ph y~t~.. and those who deny.rere cannot he. .• he same ex.upe.. BUlla..::. no mallet how compte x.. on the other hand there are those There can be no "psychoph)"ical'..... and ItS co:::!\abl~ebservancn thiU would confirm or .~t:[cs sed by correlating taws or conceptual <a)'S that when everus are rel'ttd as cause and ef=:"::::". cal character of causality must be read tal'tfuU)": il _c.~r:K have lite same extension . and lnd onl~ lht c'!'!(nts h.:. hO"'. consisc-o rr.:-:~ classificaricn of theories (he relation bedescription or open sentence.f a.. -s ical laws.l . ini·lion~~ ~-. \:""L not all events are mental.al there arc correlating Iaws and !hal tne each menl.sibil.:.l..I:\g. If our an.<S category).:m. This ~ rarnificancns no dear iH'H~ changing '#. bUI nO purely physical predicate .i'ng the physical vocabulary .' which is "mental.nl'l' . or 10000cai O"" C lions 10 cons.1in' and 'beine If:! bt:lfn of some language L with resources adequate to ex~::.logy wert: ." . it is consistent with the The analogy Just bruited. I and-onl )·'.:1te:s.::C~ various forms of parallelism..ge '-O".-..ate ..h.'. good reason rc believe cannot be dune: a nd we might be able to reduce truth in 3 formal system to syntactical properties. Caus""" failure of laws correlating the mental and tne ality and identity ate relations bel"""..".ere timid never r It wiH ~~y In .-_.-.~r. there seems n. while insisting onl~' a.: epiphenornenalism: anomaiou: d"alism.: all . Tbere is nc conpress a cerrain amount or mathematics. And finally there is anom· events no mailer how described...pin~ the II does not say that every true siogular statement ".' \rue aU ~~ ':I~ili'y lhrough law Qr de~nilion: il it did." hence be explained or predicted in Ihe tight of .~:tt altering in some physical respect.: mental phenomena can be given purdy physbli nd 10 the mental-physical dichotomy.1... The principle of the nornologi~-.. ar a statement ~3 truth OU1. Sirnilarty. term "retccr. and Ille place or the se~~:-::ierlL_ or supervenient.bUI reflex ("Conceiving the A« of . of ppoi.

should not exoect nornologicat COn I'll eC~ions bel wet 11t he men tal and 'he physical.. instances will in tum be governed by theeretical and em pirical concern..1 least. Of course. l n .... surely. there may be (me general statemcnrs re lati ng the me ntal a nd the phvsical.'CI!·n ph ilosoph ~' a nd ~i ~ncc.u('s. I he re is room ror much vari~l1iorn bttwcc:n indi\·idu.. ~i'h_ his production of the sound wlSinlonlional.and. without limit.tLl~nsivt .rsrOlI.sti ngu is hed from t hose of scie nee. . One ~C'"l~1 and one phvsical. which is nOt to say there 'a.. 10 judge 3 stateme 01 la w\i ke 0 r iIlcg. attirudesand attendingS. general state men l on rne basis of j nstances. and was a respcnse 10 the sounds as meaning". 3 nd so 0 n'~lhc' cata ~ toguc 0 f ph iloscph y's dcfcais). in Ihe presenl conl .re:no reasons in panicul" case< for a judgmonl. by dedari ng thai Iher'c a re no (Stri<:l) pSychophysicalla .smin elhic-s. are no fixed bound.. If by absurdl)' remote chance we w< re 10 stumble on a nonstocbOSliclrue. .bUI the ~ arc not IQ~'1ik. il can only be because 10 allow the possibility of such la ws wculd amount 10 changing the subject..• Rather it is: beCil'U'SC we an: persu acted.liken. know 100 rnu about thought and beha . Iklier.. there mal" ""II o>isl a physical open sentence coextensive wirh each mcnt: . all..here r may Ix cases beyond debate. degree.a1 generali zation.:htn 3 certain sound is produced in the: n131\'s presence ('·Is there life on Ma.al it is. for all we know.hing could reasonsbly persuade us that we had lou nd . Ihere sec rns 'no com !XIIing reasc n !O do nv IhOI there could be coextensive prcdic. we add a new proviso.predicate. not 10 be di.al oonooP\. "OIC· rnems I h31 ha ve the !ogical fo rm of a I. we would have no reason (0 believe it more Ihan roughly true. bUI since the number of events 11m faits under each mental pnodica'< may. which is to admil. just because all actual tries are ccnspicuously i. Where Iher. n011. however. to trust eU>ct and uni'ior statements Ii nking them. e is svstc nl in the failures. or V. a due both 10 Ih.'''~.. La".als in thc pane rn 0 r .S thai 'Suppon c-ounlcrra~lu3! and 1ubjunctivt dajm~i. 't These re marks ap ropes dt finilion. of men.. autcnomv and 10 Ih.< no clear line belween changing the . who i.-lhis holism oflhe menlal realm i. 10 hinge c n ..al i:s memal in character.ing Iln~· mental concepts.n..'f ju'tify philosophy_ for in gtn· erat the grounds for deciding to m". each dlscov««I deficiency.t I is nO! to decide its truth oUlright relative to the acceptance of. Iim·.) th.. M .. lndeed.· changing the subject I moon here: deciding not to accept the criterion of the mental in terms of the vocabulary of Ihc proposiuonat att iIu des. the non men lal cond i· uons..ch on the empirical preserves 0 f 'donee_" form of hubriS agai nst which phi losoph er'S are often warncd? Of course.e".'nilional reo d uction is how Iiute seem.m. Lawlike Statement..J ".redil claim. But sucb rel .r (in a strong sense to be described). u A striking feature of anempts at d. modified and mediated by further beliefs and desires. .THE MENTAL-PHYSICAL CONTRAST In racl. Do "'C.y thal t. instrumentalism and operat to nal ism in t he ~dcnccs.on-be:gging criterion of lhe lawlLkc.hin limits "" by t he: cO nd i ~'ion s of CQrn m u nieation. bchcvc there is life on Mars.k Ifespass_ wii I' sh a rpe'n ou r appreda t ion of thea_no m 0-. po. en .. If the case of supposed law~ linking the mental and the physicalis different. The central case invites f"nher co nsiderat ion. and are .. 'ith some mental prcdica rc. And wi.T·) h.. we always hnd Ihe need for an additional condition (provided he notice •• und.ls. by imagining eeunterexarnples "-'e do di"." I assu me we ar.ri".:idC'quatc .. Suppose we try to Sly. e are in lh~ C asc of SO rna n '1.ubjec! and cit'ngi og wh.lit~ is differonl. Why are we willing (. Iio as to conside r" rei a!od matter. phenomc n3 h:§..nilional beh. Th is short . Clcar1.a nswer can 'not prevcn t fu n h er ramifications of the problem. no. produces another 1""Ves "r. rOt a man to..<""" ancmalous character of the mental.lal" men IS to whi ch vario u. Fo.. Iogica I charaClcr "f men I. and desires issue in behavior onlv a.psycbophysic. l he ca usal t h('() t)" meaning.1 behaviorism provide atbest hint' of why"". j.m pI to gi ve ex· plicil definilion.' Qlh~( forms of definition. ruf ng il lawlike must be a priori. W.)' rhysi~31 concept'...!1 reductionism (n~t~ra.u ppo ned by Ihei r in<lances.is • m anI!: of degrtt. only if he u~M".melhing in En~tish: and <0 On.li.. IhOl Ih. £lui the pat'ern of fai lure pro rnpts a Sl ronger conel usion: if 'We "-ere \'0 find an open sentence couched in behav101"31 terms and exactly coe.viori. For if anomalous monism is correct. only Iho limid never ri.ch is nol 10 den.11 'hese re· . in termS of be· havioral ones? Not. are &e'j. thaI there -t~ no dea r line be1v. B. or . wc. The thesisis ralh er that the mental is nomologieall y irreducible.nom ologieal ityare 'ssigned.ubj"ci. though to construct it might ~n· l \101\'C t he red ium or:a lengl hy and ""nin strucu ve a 1ternarion. etc. But of course this shows he believes there is 'life on M. nothing I can say about the irreducibilily of Ihe mental deserves 10 be called • proof: and rhekind of i"rcducib.iew) 110 nonqu~s\. for Ihere . Ihe failu '" 0 f dcf. be finite.lemen.) '0 • ba ndon !h.. even if finiludo is not assumed..he q uesIion of sync nym y between defini~n' and def n i· endum. net only can cv<:ry '" en tal event be u niquc] y si ngled out usi ng onl. One line we could rake is uris: \!. of synonymy. no matier how "'" p:lIch and 5. En. t.1 Onc says on an old . I-ph ysical gene". however.(1...There i> (i n my v. apriorIsm does nOI in il". a statement on the b3sis or i["S.ds..

. ter 10 s:.1Iv. 1n' transitiv Lt~: :a. i11!. ample. I. be: th the C"or. But it seems to me' InC' (he generalization itsclf could be irnpro.~ ·-rn. il must be senthe ultimate ..""enls.-d in the shows only thal the predicates 'AS emerald" and an same gcncra~ vocabulary as the: original gcncralua'is grue' arc nOI suited to one another: gruencu is lion. 10 rejO::l the deliverance of jnl"· <nee) is heteronomic.I is. for "'1>" Ihal if the evidence suppons them. a generalization. emerires.gtnera\i:tations which when insiamiatcd . transitive and asvmrnetric: by generous..a<'~n"'·. this would nOt be i30 reason \0 tX'I.'. funher provisos and conditions Sl:3. (if we Confidence that a Sl. or if we do.~ ~ ~ . _~ • ~ I SPCClS. green.c_Jl_jl. transitive -..~ • ~:.ill)s and related eoplanalion' of panic"I. This id ea 1Ih. This is because 3 law can ilion.'on long" rilan 3S our da.1n.o"' a more accurate law. r are gruc nol on Iy is a" reason 10 belie. or time depends (tllnong. t- Concep-s SoU eQu i! ibr=. we perforce make net. and otherwise is a sa pphirc.h. Wilhin the physioal ".". LeI us "'e lhe 1.nol even a reason."S lenglh ~"h" any ob. there arc.ry mayor dop<:ndently "fknowing whether LIte..ymp· ously modified. Nelson Goodman the law. are green. ence v.· PO"" a connection between them. arc unsuited 10 1. for \~'\.. He-re is the simplest a certain physical son. postulaics f~ ccnstitutr-e rigid.Jn' (hal there is 10 ..~P[ "'ron~ les~f we thou~'\ \ being IO:.gencralizarinns a criterion of suitable predicates could sead 10 a criwhose positive instances give uS reason to believe rerion or the 13Wrike).0(. a. and the . Ileneraliulions such roses. are grve' lhan like 'All emerald. formulaled sharply and without caveat.' (again under the terms of the svstern).:.'n which green emeralds. On the' olh-c:r hand sorts.Jl.:1 . 'Blut: "red.ri)"ing lho (d l! . \.. Til are Icrce.t . ~~ p~ 1..: I object> c' :h.ailcd bl' the conjunction of 10 a dilT. rc~."UiOM do not kn..Rl case there bef Of. 'IA.I)' in proobvious that the simplification could be mended. perfect predictabLlil~ p"ychophysica.~umr~~..lalse. nomologicality is much irk!:: . otherwise blue.c thr.h a.. for inslance of emerires.n tent 10 be p. nitcly by drawing upon further physical concepts: headed i._..ti.asOIl 10 believe Ih. il will be 10 expect other cases 10 follow suit 'Ou&. explicit.! m and H'I~'C'<:-:C's tOr1W i~~ \Jo.. any p.-s (and thus rhumb. .1.' ·IM.. The I.ner than.' but there is no reason.~ leI alor. but 'all emeralds an: &f\le:' is.t is..au:::mcn~ is homcnnrruc. On the one hand. bUI il is if an. work. The facI thaI emoulds examino:! \01< i.. 'grue. I basis o~ wh --Ionge-r. .I. sapphi=.II.. ternents .. (Somtlhing i. or they art C'Kplicilly staled in prcbebilisiic or course) on the existence in caC!b case of ill twoterms.s an there arc:. weight..CJTI. 1 . ho'WCvtr cJude and ~".' aid. rn point of lawlikeness. true. if the lesson carries.lh'ily is evenl •• Tho '"ppon deriw:s fr"m the fOCIIh3t such lhis. Yet ." Nomological Slale· hope 10 be precise. J"".icnc<> ~ find 'gre.hi.ularity that could h.llC:!O":.h..0 reg.w or postulale of trans.'C'd byaddanomalous character of 'All emeralcs arc gruc' Inc.n ciples as-t. upon t. except ion less 3S ments bring together erecicaies that " -e know 3 possible only if it draws its concepts from 3 cornpriori are made for each other-c-kno . may pro"ide &000 ".~.. embody such The measuremenr of Icns.. inproheR'..' tha~.\.nd emeroses."Wl=~lI.i~..a).heoty is prcbabilisuc. ii.U..tfong constitutive elements.(1'. we then have phalds.) Not onl~ is ·"11 .J~."{" were ilB made before I &\"Id uniformly revealed lack a dcscripiion of the panicclar c:..C "n. of kn~'~ 1 hers to.h! etJo priori] h'".r<nt vocabulary. true ..' and ir Our ob:scn. .}"·gl"'HJS reason "...hed law: we rna. und.aa perfection.D~.' one might expect since both arc linked to meaning.. \0l31 explanation <raid.n: and 'gred' are mad. made within the caregcry lhe rude rule cf 'gruc" rOt example. Qn_l~ uncbserved ernere correctible within its Own conceptual domain. and homonomic generalizations.\! emeralds are grue.s this: mental and physical predicates arc there is a theoretical asymptote of perfect eohernot made for one another..)ny item Ck~:iyl "longer th:lf1 'warme. 'All emeralds arc green' is lawlike in that its inIn our dailv Iraffie with events and actions tf1:lt stances confirm it..tha\ it however an illduc:thl'(: property or entities.:<.uppon Ihey lend sinsular .illyticrl~·_as particular case rhcre is . The generalizarions .All e meralds arc green "a nd e rati zauons hereronomic. of ~3v.1g':l ttre obj""" u requires. r 10 be had.-.. portion. I't~'''.n· are made for emeralds. that il is itsell"lawlik e.. must be foreseen or understood.edo"l~by'l>iftjn~ cmerires arc grue' cnt..•. LIt.!i. and ~o mainly in lhe ."" .-. Their impcnance lies w armer than. claim is plausible. less lh. many other things.th~ there is scm to formul:l'h tintuis!i::~ '.vc close<Ilhc<>ry. escape clauses. this is a ~OO<J reason possible illustration.t rh. but in 'h. 1 fonh. heavle1. rneru c:: :::I or ani y fo. c. b o(c.) Unla. b"'Onelh31canbeSla.au . Or perhaps Before .1 staterncnu an: more like ·"11 em(under the terms of the system)...\'{:: au: in\cr¢sa~d that \\'ou~d show the: relevance of p<:CIother emeralds 10 be blue.·111~ s:. and ..it. know the rime) to belie .L~U5. deaids are grue...J) and . wi II be no ben.. We may "oil such genthe I. But ir an event of a certain mental manes that it draw iL~ concepts from a Il'U!Or\1 with son has usually been accompanied by lim event of s. temperapractical wisdom are assumed to be only roughly ture.." S3\.ag(j~. wi ikc st. for 'grue' means 'observ<:d before tirne I and use or the sketchy summary gcncralizauon. of other is a lromo~omi( gc:ncrali13.)")" is a ~ apply? Sup. or they are insulated from counterexample place relation tha. as I suppose most of our practical lore (and SCI· far as I can see.s hclos.on.' and ""I is. we have \hi~ thar partlyt geth cr ~ic Id for together do objects c. Such a gencralization points 10 (he form and not an inductive property of crntralds_ Grueness is vocabufarv of the finis. I3Ulthere is an irnportaru dininction 10 to<" has suggested that this shows thal some predicates.0 -bclieYe~Ihc-rC 1S"'3-prttise-l:l \1.. ·AII sa pphir<s are blue.c{-.1Ithe evidence.... live 111=::: \I.vid<-nce SU1>" ma~ nol be deterministic. reason 10 befieve lhey May be sh~t'f!<'ncd i"MiI· The direction in which [he discussion stems.

. lheo')' hold. m rigid.xplained by I. 0 r PO" ulaies fo r Ih. a fealure Qf physical "'alily Ihat physical chango c~n be .d i.ht:'ori.hat one ~h. or translalion in lh...a)" Y. It i. lim its 10 'he kind and arnou nt of Ill" nd cr and bad Inin king we can intell igib\y pin on others is 10 see Once more the in separabilily of the question what concepts aperson command.tStcIeven so much as ranking in length. and o(e. ex('ept within Ih.) hotds.«I. o(b. ""iI''Il behavior. mere " assumpuons tUtolial [0 rneasuremcnt of le:j"'.. it is not rncrcly. and acrions or at hers we . .. To appreciate Ih. n&1 10 h a.. kaf1i~c:xp::ctalions.and massive error erode. r3 n k i. grounds for Choice.a I sign..h.uM. On the basis of whicb wo may . and between these theeri es there rna.v.. choices. th ing ".ng longe.lg~hl that there is. ..1. b. back 10 lhi.r yield an o:mpirical lheory of groat siren g..1 I. and \1"Ie IIuest ion W. J uS! as we ca n net intelligibly .:$. theory requires.1S\C nee of constitutive (or SYllt 'hct i~ 3 prion) laws like Ih"'" of Ih.loo."rib"le any propo:s:itional aui:lude 10 :in agcnl. of lawlike statements in physical science depends upo n the ex.. leI alone the more po we rfuldcmands of measurerneru on ."d depe nd.. is 101"""..1 we bi I 10 d lseover a cohe". no co nsistent assign rnem of a. Bottinning [rom these altitudes. among such principle> 3S (L) and (M): analytic or." '_ nothing 10.t. the background of true belief 3.rict p'ychophy. rnus sirnuttaneouSlygiving conteru tc hi" attitud es and 10 hi. ls of hi.es will effecl (I more Of 1(.<:S' that Ih< c. desire. bUI lh. intentions. in ten II 0 ns. [magi ne thisern pi neal co n· tent to be po. or 0 ~ rloc.nl a nd plausible pauern in thea u it tides. as. a mistake to think we are forced to accept' some one of these answers. m=urem~n' of lenglh""lhin the ""-me conceptual dom.e com· milments of lhe memal and phy. 1~h '.hes 'longer than' from t~ olhor iwo-ptace transitive predicates or measurement and.. part I) co nst iIut ive of the idea of a sY!ii\~ of macroscopic.' central '01. viable theory of hi' beI it: dc:§']res.. hi.. content of Ih. as . idea of on.. like uniVoCr.. longer than another.M't he dots With those concepts 'on the way of'belid. net because imagin .$..in. that disI.a belie.attitudes towards his senienees."3.. ned i0 equilibrium by a number of conceptual pressure'." be no objecliv.w. And t. and the rest.ning numbcrs to n:::g.a~mislake . concept of length..:hal he mean'S.·it)': it is easy to shQw (g.all race.h.ny objCCIun Ie"" • comprehensi".s.t which ala n.. words.herthey em . by the predicate '0(".an: net.assert-.is place in the paue rn.gest for length.h conMenct_ .. i.>:. icatcd va ria n . gles."gi. wi. of Iruth.< could sa. n t< Ii" ktng Ihc me" 131and Ihe ph )'>ic.. We.sirn ply fo'ego the chance of lrealing them as PO"""S. could count I") false.Y) - L(x. would ha ve nO apptica \... SOme: degree or irrauonatity.s a. and c such lha' o(a.e fail" re ea n be CO""". whal. what do . (or loge. use of llle d ispara. There is no assigning bc::lief~ 10 a PC'tWl1 one by oneon the b . rigid objects. and" lover of the good (oil by our 0"''' lights..."'sbe<:.0· >eli pi ion of all propositionalouil udes. n g to' any ircm unless (L) hOlds in rull gener~d~ty. arc to be in 3 posit io rr to aC:C1J se 'C them mC3nL!1gJyUy of error and.)')' is ~ predicate we can ever. lC""C~' call not be coun ted '[nett: chari I)': it is un3 '·0 idabtc if .rhe aYiJtl_abt~ vocabulary. we cou Id net begj" 10 decode a man'.ic_ Iii.illhall~re do not exist In ree object.gain.. 1.b). or wanting them 10 be tru e. with preferences. however diffICult 10 formulate in. savin gs if could not make out hi'S.. ion bog.<:j o(X. framework or.ion 'leave. acceptable compromise. There ""II be no _y of'=ig. and decisions.. 1 ou r ~(ed to make hi m malt. r.1.l.rould say (M) gives a 'Wl"OO. be C'onfuSCd about . happening if '0(... w.hemes.hal i\ is-Ihe... iSIC no. inS people wi Ih a large degree of ccnsi .. 0. physical (lhjects.j.t work OU1 a th-eor)' of'l.!o. rha I "ach case 10m a theory .2:5J Unless lhis law (or some ""phi .yn\h. ngthi. 0..J') o ... satio scale.." . goes without saying)_ Life being ". I. Concepts such as Ihal of length are . 0 r Objects oftna! SOrt" we cannol inlelligibly .. we m u.. To the extent th.' We must suppose there issorne empirical content. Global confusion. with the measurement of lengl h. bUI because 100 'much 'confu. say? W.. ...ical ". will be no simpletheory Ihal lullym eeI' these demands.3.. wishing.. L' There: are no s.c). bellor 10 say the whole se of ax iorns. wc rannnt easily male: sense of the: concept ofkn&lh...1')'.hat pa"ly interprets ('-I-Bol now (Ll and I") [0. Clearly (LI. and intention. and theories of'fundamentalrneasurernent are distorted if·~ force (he decision. Miln"'.i.ngu..$ no rn aner how plai n :3 nd c vihe: dent. Or . la ws. upon it but that the Content of a proposiuonal attil udc deri ves fro m .. $Q w~ have this "meaning postutate": gi""" (r..' Ihal Ibe objecis under observation . Ihan another. C.en a fe . Ihal connecl il "'~Ih Olher rs. The problem is not bypassed bul given center siage b~' appeal 10 expl idl <peech beha vier _Fo.apply'! Suppose we think we observe an [ntransitive triad. '$eIi_Si!"..nl lhi.0" for Ih. The neiernnornic cha~el e r of general sta"m..is unthinkable. rneasu re ment of I. and 10 Ihc indcttrm'inac:v or lranslation. we witl try for a rheorvthat finds him COO.lonc ca nnct exhaust the irnpcn of 'longer Ihan'--4lhelWise il would nor differ from 'warmer than' or ·\ater than..ign a I. not onty for ::H\y~hrtt items directly involved in an inH"!ln:siti.'LopeS.his rtm:uk ~:S. such as hOlding. ror we make sense of partieul" belief' onlv as 'lhey cohere with other beliefs. geth. but then it is unclear what t we thougfu was I..

. lufot __ b.cal.aJrcct-ihe. lran.·c 10 which as10 1.. :2 . Thai there is a care&ener-.ry.Ui5CS another.s..1I1:>t10 find the lawlessness of Ihc lawlike in lhe sense of b6ng indefinitely . according to the previous paragraph.I. odd lilall "'Y even I: I \ h all not all" mot lh is.ron 0 m ic ~~nc ral iu!ion'~ wh ich a r. lor nus is comp. entire phmental e~ would JlO~ a single rn Two fe.sled • c'ond. \0 say it is a physica1 event. their freed as: percciv.he Appl)'lT1~ In"".iI U 10 ..n.h.I.L ts [ C'OD n cci ~ ng e ven l$ 0 r ki nds to.'s common \0 physical theory.. easily.ar.s to retain allcg. Ihe m cn Ia I does nOI.. nothi ng 0 f the SUpposed pri V3<"y0 f the men ta I. An a.orypromises to proa scheme of translation. r3.·i 0" C moved f'ol scribiog be . we h~ppocninr.cc ncl usio n ~'ha1 no psyclmpb ys.. signrncnis of monlal trail' arc made. he . BUI if we combine . Menial -ph).ao.jancr \0 .. \Vr:.. possible {.ht:'. called UP" nornena...:jl il.of anee of novehy 'Would fade if we: were to invesrithe s.· . ~iid ~u[l.undad~n : havtQr. unique d-cscrip~LCln of e-erv gible scheme s.. and this is Th e demonstration ofidenlity folloW'. The point is II is . fb.r'I_d.0 order 10 establish anomalous monism in.pl~ because the sire a" d Ihc rest..lL knowing.ical'law.lSlanc'es make il re:awnable to c:t::· common. jeer ..0 "'hie'h those e . si". .. I Suppose m. it w. menta.. put di fferenll y. Nor is.thc phy.a1 Sci. . caused p. le~.ry me ntal even l 1h~t is.viden~c.II.. M:Y{t= FlJ.by ou r prin oipi e.der is identical ""'ilh SOme ph%ical .11 on the basis 0 f wh ieb we lran. The from thecal<t:0rial qlliir~. _ light of ccnsiderations of overall cog~n<"y: the conmen ra 1 rhat i'"<. wo mental with thai...1 serving 10 help establish Ihe idenlilY of . We are as.'§. If the.~~ions example.. closed system guararnecd to due simply 10 the PQs.n!.ical ieal i.~i<31eve n I. a ph%Lcal [Mnk.<.umin&_ un.al evcnt at least arc cause a fealure orlhc mental that the auribution of'mcnor clTectS of phy.' ". bUI homcnomic. eve.h ofl though.~OO.ur· ptcl othef ii\stances 10 follOw sijt' ". beliefs and iMc. of Ihe lawlike.e. I. We must conclude. under a phy.: under a r·.u L.. paradigm.""..ll works w'hen .. that SO"''' mcnt ..""nt The reasoning i_s. possible to know thaI a mental .OIl' of rhe ical Character ofCausality) soy.~ibilj1Y' of nl3n."enl w..LT. cause or e. Knowledge rcscheme ol translation.lhoUI the Pri nciple 01 I he Co u".. fro= fi". I y of <1 cl ri re I. are no strict laws . a 1.". . Ih31 each true sinIndividual..1 .. a commonplace.on. 1 w. Thi. a strict I.. The gi" of Ihe r0 regc inr.. Ph~iC'a.. feel: bUI I menial c\\ [0 idiom. l edge "nd p.s when we ~ nations of "3'.'I\ ts proper source of evidence.. :r~3~:nS_ but IhcS-C'are a~·~ilabl.1 1. Ihe .. lawlike j n lh:.im possibil. i. with a secc I Ir is an . able in the light of all po ssibk evidence.lIiblc with anarbipnysical event couched in a vocabulary arnceablc trary choice of On 0 $C IIerne rol. ~. oi SOu ssion.1: n t _ So. give i.thOLiI ~·t~g prist.lalion manual would be of a manual acceptcan predict and explain mental phenomena. or If one event ca. law can only be ph%iC3. a righ I arnitra ry choice of. A second Principle (of Ihc Nomolog· ground of reasons. 254 MINO . be..1 0''<'1)' gorial d ifferenee bel wee n Ihe m em a. will be familiar..JiIY il would be sufficiern tc show Ih. bUI eetlainly nO! no"'.(.."" I.1 111 men 1. FlJ. But il i. tions. there arc 13. There cannot be light connections belgular causal statement Is hacked by a strict law wee .:301' C '10. O BOOY changes and conditions physically described..Ihi' observation wiih phase in the evol u l 10 n or what must be an c \1'0t '1. I~n.<.11y related '0 a physica I even I is a ph . <on5l. or ldonlt\i.a ph ysi eal e yen l ceuses . 8.ical events. bUI Ihi< appear$Cribed. 1h. a.ai I the grou nds for acccpti ng '3 law or the relevant deseriprions.L.og. then under SOme description /II·and pin· and the pnysieal is essential as long as we conceive starui a re a strict law.as aspects omalisrn 0 tie n for vit.1 ~.1' I. Whe'" there ducibility of [he mental docs nOI derive merely arc rough. il i. in IOf..".nal. the irreducibility vide a 'C'O mprehe nl$i '1. decan provide such a framework.e-aocumu lares.))<:ring of Principle of lneAnomalism of the Mental: lhere' theory.. -. tho ph)" iral ind(rwhat has t thought . the gale in m OtC de..e i. of man as a rational animal.QuS a rgu m e r.. a menial. <hoi"" we cannot make.1'] ng l he. Ihc argument tal phenomena mUSI be responsible 10 the backonly to these. The nomological irrcrnernioncd as cause and effectbelong. ". An arbitrary choice of translation scheme is.__ 1-.1.!" such interdcpendomain and upon which there .. it "as a physical do scription.ic. event.ud [ypiraillo kno . and is c-ompoint of precision and comprehensiveness... h i~ Menl. Ihat nomological slack between the mental event.]1 sciences. Th~ andCaw:~:· . full condusion. we [he would preclucc such opportunistic t"".1 De pocndene<: 0 f Ihe knowing which on" (io the sonS!: of bein& able 10 'pr1i".re~n."I. l'rdd a Sland~roiud.1 and the p hysmental event is.o.ble.c m U$I sta nd prep> red.I1 ilSClr..es ithout retauvizaticn to w phrs. secticn rhat such lows occur in the pfc~'ing a man's an iU. as well as i IS 1.ffttl of scrne ph\·!i.\\"."' from the seamless nature of the world or thought.CI~ 10 knowledge.. ophy 10 cictlen r c-ot ~i1Swhen \10. drawing on concerns from the same conceptual preference and irueruion. sY""'malio pari of the stitutive ideal of rationality partly comrots each mental.Q. lhis.in the form difference ""tween Ihc menIal and Iho physical 10 of rough h.. se< tha. patible with there being" single righl way 01 inrcrurged in the 1.1. It may seem.is no improving in denoe .IS instantiate when propcrl~ dehis own propcsitional atutudes.cre j~ a :5it'r:it:'~ law the spttial authority an agent has with respect \.._. li"g tht m. a ... the real m s ~ each ..001 plausible Ihal mental concepts alone rather lhal when we use tnc concepts of belier.I<.flulat causal n:laliott Wilho\. m uch -happcns ~. adj USI":>U r ~nO\lI'Y . which is. whi ch the C\"!. caus. But if m fan..ical stare me [It thco.in. Or can be buill into.l-<:Ios«l $:'$-IWl.y equallv eli..

'1i.f..P. F. 6.A.e iD'Mil'ion 'b~ H ~~n ForJ&i . cll_ r.I.'c plulcsoph~ LO sbow I'hat il.nj(' Jm~ffIP/ of rhJ'!..m cf PhilM"f'hy U' (tIl611.-:JI C"'C'f'I1 ~ m.ji~(}.QS~P4l"'1 ill (hi' fllj'lillll[l/P1'. 11"I~rot{loilC'tl'tilifo fJJ I:~f. . .):"w (l966l pop.:5 iU-C def-cndecJ if!. a.toI.lj. 'but lhalool h ni uM 1x thought (is n(f(t·.". PC'Y' 1'!~''I''11K(llhA1:'-iII~ NC"o¥ York_ l 95"l' I.lor-rillis.Ql)Olj~ !9SS): S~"dflot~ S:tuxm3·korl."5.(1DQ~t claim Ihan merelv I i'1:.. 10. P~F'!i(U:m~(ln..t~/{J{J/lrllr.i. (...'ounKll at P/lih.:..lo~'~ I p I a~.:illfi M:i!l1'{"Olm~··Sd-l:'iltiflot"-W. F.ifldal.0 Illt' I"a..6."' Plli/juup'rlm! S.1 dependence and nornologiea t indepc rid en C'-(.nlal event ('0 described. On [hi.omc=n~I.J..• ease" • nd act ic n..r('t"i .I_he' 1I$$'Uffttflio. rwn. ~·Pb~c.~t}' a/ rlu'mf!I'Jl..pCI a :196:8. "'..1~1'.i). Such aeeou nts of"in!~ ntional beha vier operate ina conceptual' fra ".Pd~rrtH~1 c/lh-e .I n~d SLu:dr ~rio I_h.." (Of" i. Tile).ot n. I hen.IJP.$ tJdpOd ~ nd in . . '~_""r'IO rneru for tht: I&i:rnj[y Theery. Iboi(I. T.(' r~jll"lU}phk1d Rt'11tt'1'o'_X.lSQn. are coo" r used. decisions and lIC· lions.a:iolll bi:1"'~n ~rticulu (.. 1bt Ps..9: D~'"kIIb~..II.Tilt" .~JPn.·i."LI(.lL noC')'·.E.-PHY$'C"'_ CONTRAST give it a unique physical ccscnpricn that brings i[ under a rclc . nllC" !pO.'i.\'ChoPh~~iol. Min. n iii a diffC:r'r ent :5Cn51: :arid retaucn when .·· njt' /orlm41 rJ/ lI1u'· :ll"Iod 1r.·'''i~l)':w.i nlmg 1n.. ii!I_n. t.k Chi:5. [i~n:il Science as FOI.ch( rlC'1.. c-. C. Fl~l"Is I fid OIJ_~."lv[onlSr:itt\C'CS.afll ng_.$1.11 [!i60~l... Here.1=wis ~i.~.~1Ki '!hc:o "Pni!-1ioi1l.c.n. 1909 J. L.~ cf. tdiiltd by Rob:=l1'a'n'k..otdi.-c nccessaritv locate them ami'dphysic.... '$CC: D..ei.ii!!..~ THE "~... <I.rn. m.X~JI (1966:~. L. I Wa. i ndlspensrble pt'tlbl-c:m of :5o:pc'QJ la\i". t <.d Rori.c.n is 1'T\a<IC' C'l 'Plirit owMnl. Mm(·Lhin. RichJ.al happenings through tho relsnon COu'" and d· fecr..Bnd'l..yoti!:::li1 C'1)m:13_tfl. J~ Kj-m'~ ""\(M. .or m~'QQli'ICln \'!o lc:n\.. 1'."J lnj' .~ a.a.'d I""P WOu Id no'! follow :1 I he hn ('IOU Id nn:d iet or e xpla in il.~ tYi:Il[S as IJ rIoivc1'S3bi (P. :iII. .'¥'("1'101J. ~:i'tdDi. but Iha. I:Ip.. of na.!itJ_ 11_ ..X .U Sm .a!ire on.P/il.s N *&c:i. to d i~o I\'C who' has 0 Ite 0 sec Oh'd • parad 0 •• Iho efltcac y 0 r ll>ougnl and purpCl«: in Ih( material ..I~I. Rc:5CnC"f.~"'SO.IB.~ OO he-n...-t1n.Qo6J}.5% I.. UI Thor' uueted :P.ft~SDl. .iLfi r r O«'"~" rh. LX:< I or t 196~~. l~f. l'l~ 537...A~ I he NOlo'("mbcf. We ~Xp13t'!1 a man's ~_Clion$.'''..a. . i" ed by phy-3.he same: ai~n in "TM: t.121-l. (h. b. .'''lllll1ion E"("nLS" in EMa)'j in "MM Q_( ('Dr! G.AJI'!t'I"i-CG"1J PltilQSdpltk4J QmtnM_!!.W 1. :illpa5. III 09661.. .d.it"'t' tMinl:l... M)' ~... . ie . Tb-i= th·cme..i.~I1U on whkb ~hc rD(m.. ~:n L.1"uing.I .1.-~... ry c mernaJ event wen: identical with a physicaL it or or 100 and in .'Icr.1'i....Omo M :UT.ature.m oo1h . as long as we do not change the idiom.II'ho i!lJ~ nol rewo l'Iii !J'le (or !h~ r:es\l_ll. I I •.ton for viewing action as autonomous.il.. particular Mental eve n~s can "'hen kn ow pari ic u lar ide ntit ies.' IQCl'uiL'I.·· p. I un:. '5Uf!pono::l" by \M.5.·1.. 2.L·.::tl ic [1.O&ic lOr Ih~I(ll::n' U\y ThcO<y.(IJ ph.d"":s..r freedom (rom_law. rt ..iIISOn5.. 'I.rlUl'J'~. 68." .r.u [M Uni""C. my "A. I conclude with a secondpassage from Karn: w..... a nd effttl .h-at we tbtok m .udrf'~. lei! ~un:" l}..o~' fMo.. (Cord rt'('lu. -com bi nc.rc.l"3iil't a <ingl.un.lltit) thcol")' "m a 'kl::!li I :1. . I ~J: Ch.h~l'T\.. 2(1:!.uitc-d b)' d.t'lit'lf.bl::ri.c:~~C'IiI b) T!'ioma.~~.s_ be dC"t['nnini~tl. rn.I.. eilii Rt1I.u l:i..1 3m i~bted lO' Lee 60'"-'11.pp.~_Lm.PlJlillt. Ind lri:ind'"50 Qf ~1...c-O hC:I?_ Tbe ~i.NTAl. l1...J :S. Two ." r~ rOT H is iii n. 1.). onlylh.I«.~ f"(~:.·· T4e> h~u.:!$11 01. ' '~1Im. { :R kn.tru L ~Q form I. Il~lS..~t'm.tQ' .COnll'!l.ndQ".' riu/<htJftlrit::a! R~'~'.luw[fJI) __Jj Mind. Ihoro!)' i.. aspects of..rd. 1969).lind 2).em Ontario.l50.ework removed from ! di reci reach of ph y<icalla w by dehe scribing both <au".l~ T. O. AbOO I•. 3. S~<k..an~hc( I:uml)!:e.iS1.~.LJ:.l.196J./dS<JPbi~1 Rr~. 696-6'9'9 :iIIn4 -Ttl-=: If!d.5.. D~(1]!JZtl~_ (I '964 -6 S). l!\c: ~dc-. k nowl· edge and ~r«p..I"'I..I do IlOI (I~u itle :{IrQntor't dill im. ."'001 tQ.d 8filnd.tfKh.ical $Cit nee. thus a neeessarvcondi[.ID}' D::I.i' Qf "5ou. n.. IJrrd j/I(' Hill_ro_ o. Tl1. FUfjd~(m~.'iI·· Ti..'). appea I 10 his dcsi=.reb ~O.X t. Otl'llrt h. The anomalism of the mental .UrIIJi 8utk p'f'IbI~ •. J)..5. .. lI\a.~ w..}l.cl dlcin :r('(j.c-. diction n:!i1.)$.:: ('I..if"bl.i~dC\l'¢lo~ itl.1). !"Ill..: 1M.. 1962). 1"I:m. portrait of a human agent.ff.\. 9.1l'ty {aLb if'i 1M ""O!IIl<'x'~ ~l. J. 1S ~ 76. Menial eve n Is as a <an not be «pl. S.I"Icity 'Incol'l! \.bjltCt b~' NotTn.1C' 1'1 ~~J' .1..Srn~..Ili~.. (19.. <arne mode of p''''tr"~al insulates mental events.On thi2it [1"1(' Il .idc= In oonne("!ie n \I..)~.in.(h<lDD<"1I t {Enilc'll.J3.l"llo::l&n i"I-tU S'll~ .La nl. Tn -'C.8.of I h~~ 'l. lOllford: 8.t' I Idc-nl tW Theory .Si m c sub- ·or jccl •••• 106 C>JOTES .=hilJfI..d h. }""". mQfe Or Ir~ or-:trNioCl !I~' recogn Il~ .13 I.s m or .pp.Rodl:nl.~('Ui&ibly be ~i4 III ha .! l.."lilobot::!ik (l.TIl. "Mind~BOO~ J·dC:(lLII~..Mi .: . of course).:z..itio-n~.s of mcntJI everus i n tn('ir relation [0 me pbysic31-cau".4..~ .Q.hill' $ub:s~'1l!~I\it}· or \(Ie [1..ndRichard Rony.N...Cnl pl'liuiil'.... Idot "'II [~.Lon and ihoc Cc nl(~r ror 1\'1:1 ".WJ lcwi:s.rcn. and th.dli!PC"tI4'S.i mu:~on respecting tlie. \1'11.t.1'\<1 bnt.(~·.)1 men I. W' 1:2J~. Even jf someone knew the..lt ic:k-n!i1~_ Iht i<k.~ ~t!(:l m~' . r. v.IJr S£. II muM th<::n:lo~c ~.... I'lp. a rid c . ora 'UuLi 1\ or iIII~~l"tm.'...l1_ nlM~ I . fc rthccrm n.t.\t~y.a1 I i1<'.I~id K_ l. . 3]'9 -l:St1_ . L 8. iI n_. J..l m o 11 .... i~ ~ et dCpc:rR1i .:pl..F-o.:ud Bron!!lulfl" :ill rKI Au !!.ho.. thill 1'10'1 onl't I:'".rmj by P.t ClI"I.J. J.J. ill.lfIIad::! 1~n.:tVI I I..'C'!)' 'lNC1l c:o-. When wc ponrav everus as pc:r~ivings.1'! tIRo ('Ir-cxf.3il:~ T.I ::!01. -..pd('lll cl1J t rtmSt be I rut' If :..J~j/1. ~·. 16·3-t6~ I_~ rcpnnted ~·. -. cU rn 1'1". en t ireph }'-~ica ~ hi sto ry 'I he' world..... M .and 11~rLKim :prOpo5C rvuShi).el l!.1"I1f1o/o"i"«dCItl...·...I· lmllt!d In '1he.K'n~~1. habits. "'f'. Su·...· i~ m_ Tht' PJi.ood! {1ilT~.a.digns" R~.C' call him [tee.11 CQttd~\i:on. I do nol $tl~ th. t.PI! :2·4_.. . Ikmpiil. n·. orld.:. w.cs.al met W1!)' -~ 'J.I'lo-Ph~ . t. But !he explanations cfrncntalevents in which . i'i-t liii!!..l0:..('" Io.~-~·1. ec.N.~ 11'1I be prfllXl. flo. I tid wi II he' . ~Jld when we tc:gal'd him as subject 1..!: of W~I.1'S-S. ~ 'I"IOrruJlous mQ1"I i'5m is..g.on :iII~.ll~ il . pp.£.~-:.!. {La [u:!·!Jon. ion s. N"J. I~. op. 15S:Ir·on~. t b."" that can in principle be "ailed upon to explain and predict physical phe- or nomena. Ln LU. AcljM:.'..om the 'Iri<1I.'i("'lJ." Tlu' )rJ~t""QI of PhUQioph)'_ u (• ll.• r JI m nIOI 'I'-"'Ln~ to pi'g~ 1.rc ii ill)C""Ui~ pM:i:I. 1 [dtJ1t11r Thc'ory:' ...aylOf..l "'x I v ( I Qo~ 1 I. RII:. C~u~. in rIol.riQtI in Tb.lnalitlJl ios.n:jI.(oM11iQl1'$..<.tQrr'..trr.:I~l('aJ1.· iilfI(lPI. tK.c. and eoncitions.ubl:i~1I of tr!~ ~b«!:1"). btI\ ie L.t-tk:'lI r:.. ant law). J~2S l I· or "'I:U roo. are typically in teresred retate "them' 10 other mentaleven I.ng$. po.iil.n.

'CmOlllt:'I"LI .gIl has no c... 1.fNJlofni~y. 27 Jaegwon j( "Epipher 1. .lo'lll_utks. n w-llS~J2'9.of U'lr il11 (I(.. .. Vkim. ::Uilj.lS!t'n~ .. arL~ :JiI:'C'.~.=" TI>< J.PO" ..1 " .)'. \I"_ Qlilrnc"s 4ocfrlnt= .M=" 1!l6O~'" f "". JC'lf"._ s.(I( 1~Il$.iofJ. p.i~~nll.""".Nt he: mccJi: 'I~ p31:ri\ o! my HElt1tt01c=1i by O1hlO:l" N.n.. ·m.a:l Lhj~ I"t imaC'C' ". H( \Io-Tih If~~ C"t. lndI1('{LQ[i..1r.lj O l!6··.o\.Ii~-... n.J'~01 .R.1 C'I "'holly d.iIp..il.t\1~Sr~ ~'l. .p.I:.t('OPt." ~iTle j.rI~'. sidued..r..8- ""'" or I 5..otink'nl'..-.).::' -All' II:mm-m.~.:l]' idiofill Q.'kCflCioS 0( ~'[(. In a_Tgui'n~ for It I. "Good· ~n't.'Io. 16...!>k P.lhef\lo.1U\Idi John M..u! 2nd beiO.QurTIll .~ <i.lh< thou..IO/ Phil.ani:lispu1es 1M 'Elwt:i.md n-I"-UU lh. UU(19~.\ a! each momc-n nihilo.. ~ 11." ' "'"'G'I:!~efr Pn>}<o.2:1P ofl_~ ~nuJ i5lUes ~ivc~~ Goo:Im.y.ng.d 'the PI'O..'lion beL~" 1t1n:slatil.:kh eF~M. 3 I·EI'.. ".I'-t:rn~n[h cieri Of4 .t:ennin~'or"<IIINb.n&~. ~ on t 1. ~".. The' ..frQ.)('111 (196061.• t: • '$i.a.Joul'ki(d of PhUMtJ:p/lr.John .m ~n. I 6. c'h. EI J on31ha n Edwa m atenol .tu: devtlo~ lht..J..~'5I Mm (fit= I"~k of ll'~ 0". 11ft ~ . 286 ~.. &Ctq>!OII "" Ill<hm! C. .PC"'-a~iG 11r~ prior alsIcn~ ItOtlii'1. Thi . The induc:iK"t' d W.:LH.k.". UIV {~96'}. IIf'tdLlribiilir.b!ien~· Ip..ama.. or.'.al "B~I'JUno~1."""... ''_ow.rnmU I'i. TheiI ..C~~~ Ihc gI..j"@.1..l."" In 145 Qu. . 22' I.." .". 1 or Won:I f)ffd Ob}r'rt !Cim!>ri<ll<'.:u in.2$.t'l 00 tlPOfl.\ing stri".1..Ou~f)'!" TMJfJfJ.1>. . DOl it be [ik . p= d.$.h('1'Tl t:Q:~m~ ~inl~~icel..'Ii nll.". mnnQ'...rld ~ p.· ' by U'It' (.ists .:nne{ im2@.". Llbli~mC1:1 11'iI Thus.~' r " I I I l I.nci parts of !hi< .. then po"'tf~iiill fir.. Wal~ ·'OOOdm:lfl" Loc:Pc . pka:= or l~u::fII'.r Phl O.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful