The mind incarnate. Lawrence A. Shapiro. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK.

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (2):497–500 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The dominant tradition in the philosophy of the cognitive sciences has assumed that human minds can be realized in many other kinds of brains and the mind is a fairly autonomous component residing in the body. In The Mind Incarnate, Stuart Shapiro labels these the multiple realizability thesis and the separability thesis and sets them in opposition to two alternative theses that he advances: the mental constraint thesis and the embodied mind thesis. Although Shapiro has very interesting things to say on behalf of the embodied mind thesis, by far his more significant contribution is his argument on behalf of the mental constraint hypothesis and hence against the multiple realizability thesis. Although there were a number of early dissenters from the multiple realizability thesis, as a result of arguments by Putnam and Fodor, it came to be regarded through most of the 1980s and 1990s as a simple truism. It has provided the chief argument against the reduction of psychology to neuroscience and for an autonomous psychology.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
30 (#504,503)

6 months
2 (#1,157,335)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William Bechtel
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking about mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
Functional analysis.Robert E. Cummins - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (November):741-64.
Explanation: a mechanist alternative.William Bechtel & Adele Abrahamsen - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):421-441.

Add more references