Talk:Type physicalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Token Identity Link?[edit]

It links to anomalous monism which is not the same as token identity thesis. 95.8.236.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some clarification[edit]

My understanding of token and type physicalism implies that type physicalism begins and ends with the brain. A type physicalist would believe that intelligence connot exist outside of a human brain. Token physicalism, which is distinguished clearly in this article, believes that though there are physical occurances in the brain that allow thought to occur, actual thoughs and ideas themselves are beyond the workings of the brain and can exist in other organisms and even computers. The distinction that the author gives between these two beliefs is not very clear within the first paragraph and should be clarified.

--Rockergirl164 (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up and expansion[edit]

Hi all. I just made some changes to the article. It needs a lot of work, though. Hopefully people can work on it. There are plenty of resources out there online to help keep it on track (like the SEP and the IEP entries). - Jaymay 07:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, about expansion, I think the first section after introduction should be some kind of more detailed explanation of the theory. Article talks about types and criticism, but for someone without a good background (like me), it's hard to understand what is being criticized. And second paragraph, those "yellow is yellow is..." need some kind of explanation too, I understood nothing about the difference between two theories after reading it. I think a sentence starting something like "Similarly, token identity theory states that..." Tiredtime (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a typo[edit]

I rushed through a little carelessly and typed in five tokens. Sorry to mislead. Thanks for spotting the error. --Lacatosias 09:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I think the reply to the final criticism is worded a little vaguely. I've read it several times through but I really don't understand what Smart's reply is supposed to say. I think it'd help if someone who knew the subject very well could reword it.

Fish[edit]

"pain is identical to C-fiber firings" universally and at all times is highly implausible

Also known as "It's ok: fish don't feel pain". Or, perhaps "what the fish feels isn't pain".

Not at all. What it means is simply that the same exact sensation of pain could be realized by, say, Q-fiber firings instead of C-fiber firings in the salmon, by J-fibre firings in the octopus and by some configuration of silicon in a hypothetical silicon-based life form (computer with qualia). --Lacatosias 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


How ironic that the originator of Type Theory was named "Boring."

Non-eliminative reductionism[edit]

Does Nicholson's non-eliminative reductionism fit in here? --Extremophile (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)