Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:14:59.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mind the Adaptation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Lawrence A. Shapiro
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By now, even the kid down the street must be familiar with the functionalist's response to type-identity physicalism. Mental kinds like pain, love, the belief that Madison sits on an isthmus, etc., are not identical to physical kinds because it's conceptually (if not empirically) possible that entities physically distinct in kind from human beings experience pain, love, beliefs that Madison sits on an isthmus, etc. Type-identity physicalism, in short, is baselessly chauvinistic in its rejection of the possibility of nonhuman minds.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 49 , March 2001 , pp. 23 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, R. (1987). Invertebrate Zoology (Philadelphia: Saunders).Google Scholar
Block, N. 1978/1980. ‘Troubles with Functionalism’, in Block, N. (ed.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 268–305.Google Scholar
Block, N. (ed.) 1980a. Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Block, N. 1980b. ‘Introduction: What is Functionalism?’, in Block, N. (ed.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 171–84.Google Scholar
Conley-Dillon, J and Gregory, R. (eds) 1991. Evolution of the Eye and Visual System (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Conway, Morris S. 1998. The Crucible of Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Cummins, R., Ariew, A. and Perelman, W. M. forthcoming: Functional Explanation in Psychology and Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species (London: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
Enç, B. forthcoming: ‘Indeterminacy of Function Attributions‘, in Cummins, R., Ariew, A. and Perelman, W. M. (ed).Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1968. Psychological Explanation (New York: Random House)Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. 1998. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition. (Sunderland: Sinauer).Google Scholar
Hull, D. 1970. ‘Contemporary Systematic Philosophies’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, M. 1991. ‘Optics of the Animal Kingdom’, in Conley-Dillon, J. and Gregory, R. (eds.), (New York: Macmillan), pp. 118–135.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1969/1980. ‘Review of Putnam’, in Block, N. (ed.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 232–33.Google Scholar
Moore, J. and Willmer, P. 1997. ‘Convergent Evolution in Invertebrates’, Biological Review, 72, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, H. 1967/1980. ‘The Nature of Mental States’, in Block, N. (ed.) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 223–31.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1986. Evolution and Classification: The Reformation of Cladism (New York: Longman).Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1996. Evolution, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Science).Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1993. Philosophy of Biology (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Stewart, C., Schilling, J. and Wilson, A. 1987. ‘Adaptive Evolution in the Stomach Lysozymes of Foregut Fermenters’, Nature, 330, 401–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wake, D. 1991. –Homoplasy: The Result of Natural Selection, or Evidence of Design Limitations?’, The American Naturalist, 138, 543–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. 1992. ‘Adaptation: Current Usages’, in Keller, E. and Lloyd, E. (eds) Keywords in Evolutionary Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 13–18.Google Scholar