Two objections to materialism

This paper puts forth two reasons to hold that at least some mental entities are not physical entities. First argument: Some mental entities (namely, pains and other qualia) cannot possibly differ from how they seem to be, and since this cannot possibly be true of any non-mental entity, it follows that some mental entities are not physical. Second argument: It is necessarily on theoretical grounds, as opposed to strictly experiential grounds, that mental entities are identified with physical entities. Water is legitimately believed to consist of microparticles of a certain kind because there is independent reason to believe that entities relevantly similar to such particles, supposing them to exist, are relevantly similar to water, so far as the latter can be directly observed. It is not, nor could it possibly be, on the basis of some directly observed concomitance between molecule-activity and water-activity that we believe the former to constitute the latter. It obviously isn't on the basis of any directly observed concomitance between brain-activity and mental-activity that the former is believed to mediate the latter. At the same time, there cannot possibly be any other legitimate basis for that belief. The reason for this is that nothing relevantly similar to mental activity can possibly be observed to accompany anything relevantly similar to brain activity. And the reason for the latter fact is that, even if brain-activity and mental-activity occur in the same physical space, they occur in different data-spaces: when you experience a pain, it is not given to you as occurring in the same spatial manifold as the falling of a stone or any other physical event. In general, mental events, whether or not they in fact have spatial coordinates, cannot possibly be observed (experienced) as having such coordinates, and for this reason they cannot be observed as having the same coordinates as brain-events. Thus, there can be no reason to grant the existence of the concomitances whose existence is needed to legitimate the bridge principles on the basis of which the mental could legitimately be identified with the physical. Note on the second argument: This argument doesn't show that the mental is non-physical; it shows only that there cannot possibly be any justification for the belief that the mental to be physical or, at any rate, that, if there is such a justification, it isn't comparable to the justification for the belief that water consists of molecules.
Keywords materialism  dualism  epistemic vs. ontological dualism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1037/h0091206
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,386
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Weak Materialism.N. M. L. Nathan - 1996 - In Howard Robinson (ed.), Objections to Physicalism. New York: Clarendon Press.
Epistemological Objections to Materialism.Robert C. Koons - 2009 - In Robert C. Koons & George Bealer (eds.), The Waning of Materialism: New Essays. Oxford University Press. pp. 281--306.
Taking Type-B Materialism Seriously.Janet Levin - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (4):402-425.
Phenomenal Properties.Richard Double - 1985 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (March):383-92.
The Unknowable: The Pragmatist Critique of Matter.Glenn Tiller - 2006 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (2):206-228.
Materialism.Charles E. Jarrett - 1982 - Philosophy Research Archives 1459:457-497.
Replies to Critics.Michael C. Rea - 2004 - Philo 7 (2):163-175.
Where Does the Self-Refutation Objection Take Us?William Ramsey - 1990 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 33 (4):453-65.
Christian Materialism in a Scientific Age.Lynne Baker - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (1):47-59.
Musical Materialism.C. Tillman - 2011 - British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (1):13-29.
Materialism.Stewart Duncan - 2013 - In S. A. Lloyd (ed.), Bloomsbury Companion to Hobbes. Continuum.
Materialism and the Logical Structure of Intentionality.George Bealer - 1996 - In Howard Robinson (ed.), Objections to Physicalism. New York: Clarendon Press.


Added to PP index

Total downloads
14 ( #395,700 of 2,266,885 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #372,916 of 2,266,885 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature