Persons and psychological frameworks: A critique of Tye
Journal of Consciousness Studies 16 (2-3):141-163 (2009)
|Abstract||This paper concerns the relationships between persons, brains, behaviour, and psychological explanation. Tye defines a ‘psychological framework’ (PF) as a set of token beliefs, desires, intentions, memories, streams of consciousness, higher-order mental states, etc., that ‘form a coherent whole’ and against which a creature’s ‘behavior can be explained’ (p. 141). A person is the subject of such a psychological framework. Each person has one PF, and with each new PF there is a new person. Meanwhile materialism tells us, according to Tye, that brains are the bearers of mental states. In other words, ‘each person is a brain’ (p. 142) — or rather a ‘global physical state of the brain,’ since Tye believes that a single brain might realize multiple PFs and thus constitute multiple persons. Most of this paper simply assumes Tye’s account of personal identity, in order to expose certain contradictions within what Tye says about personhood in split-brain subjects. Towards the end of the paper, however, I turn to alternative accounts of persons. While a method of individuating persons grounded in scientific psychology would identify persons with psychological frameworks, as Tye does, perhaps an account of personhood grounded either in a non-psychological science, or in non-scientific psychology, would better fit the interests we have in personal identity.|
|Keywords||Philosophy of mind Split-brain phenomenon Individuating mental tokens Personal identity|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tim Bayne (2005). Divided Brains and Unified Phenomenology: A Review Essay on Michael Tye's Consciousness and Persons. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):495-512.
Timothy J. Bayne (2005). Divided Brains and Unified Phenomenology: A Review Essay on Michael Tye's Consciousness and Persons. [REVIEW] Philosophical Psychology 18 (4):495-512.
Trenton Merricks (1999). Endurance, Psychological Continuity, and the Importance of Personal Identity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (4):983-997.
Elizabeth Schechter (2010). Individuating Mental Tokens: The Split-Brain Case. Philosophia 38 (1).
James H. Moor (1982). Split Brains and Atomic Persons. Philosophy of Science 49 (March):91-106.
Edward Greetis (2011). Dissociative Identity: An Objection to Baker's Constitution Theory. Acta Analytica 26 (4):329-341.
John Thomas Wilke (1981). Personal Identity in the Light of Brain Physiology and Cognitive Psychology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (3):323-334.
Christopher Buford (2009). Baker on the Psychological Account of Personal Identity. Acta Analytica 24 (3):197-209.
Trenton Merricks (2000). Perdurance and Psychological Continuity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):195-199.
James Baillie (1991). Split Brains and Single Minds. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:11-18.
Sydney Shoemaker (2008). Persons, Animals, and Identity. Synthese 162 (3):313 - 324.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-06-21
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?