[lit-ideas] Re: the first lines are the argument referred by
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:36:24 +0000 (GMT)
________________________________
From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 6 November 2011, 16:40
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: the first lines are the argument referred by
Donal McEvoy wrote:
"Wondering which Hilary Putnam(and on which planet) Eric means?"
>Perhaps this one?
'I shall, in short, argue that pain is not a brain state, in the sense of a
physical-chemical state of the brain (or even the whole nervous system), but
another kind of state entirely. I propose the hypothesis that pain, or the
state of being in pain, is a functional state of a whole organism.' (Putnam,
'The Nature of Mental States')>
So is this one the same one in Eric's post? The one who wouldn't agree,
apparently, that a thought isn't identical to a brain state?
>Apparently not everyone would agree that it is demonstrated that a thought
>isn't identical to a brain state.
Hilary Putnam, for example.>
Even if 'twin-planet Putnams' explains the apparent discrepancy, it would seem
these Putnams are not identical twins.
Donal
England
Other related posts:
