Conceiving of Pain

ABSTRACTIn this article we aim to see how far one can get in defending the identity thesis without challenging the inference from conceivability to possibility. Our defence consists of a dilemma for the modal argument. Either “pain” is rigid or it is not. If it is not rigid, then a key premise of the modal argument can be rejected. If it is rigid, the most plausible semantic account treats “pain” as a natural-kind term that refers to its causal or historical origin, namely, C-fibre stimulation. It follows that any phenomenon that is not C-fibre stimulation is not pain, even if it is qualitatively similar to pain. This means there could be phenomena that feel like pain but are not pain since they are not C-fibre stimulation. These possible phenomena can be used to explain away the apparent conceivability of pain without C-fibre stimulation. On either horn of the dilemma, the identity theorist has ample resources to respond to Kripke's argument, even without wandering into the contentious territory of conceivability and possibility.

On the Difference Between Non-Connoting Terms and Rigid Designators: A Reply to Bradley

A main point of my article, as I see it, is that we can solve Putnam's problem, as articulated in the first paragraph of section three, without recourse to the definition of “natural-kind term” as “rigid designator of a natural kind”. I had three main objections to this definition:(a) It makes the classification of a term as a natural-kind term dependent on one's metaphysics, i.e., on the status given to natural kinds. However, Putnam's argument seems to be independent of such metaphysical considerations, and the sort of natural kinds it establishes (if any) should be “read off its face”, not set down in advance (section 2).(b) It permits the derivation of “exotic necessary truths” such as “If water is H20 then necessarily water is H20” (sections 9 and 10).(c) Putnam's main point appears to be about the independence of a term's extension from a linguistic community's beliefs. Why should this point affect the theory of designation? Kripke's argument about names establishes the non-descriptiveness of names while leaving undisturbed the classical conception of names designating individuals. Why should we not take his and Putnam's parallel arguments as establishing the non-descriptiveness (non-connotation) of natural-kind terms while leaving undisturbed the classical conception of general terms designating classes (section 10)?

Natural Kinds and Unnatural Persons

Most people believe that extraterrestrial beings or porpoises or computers could someday be recognized as persons. Given the significant constitutional differences between these entities and ourselves, the general assumption appears to be that ‘person’ is not a natural kind term. David Wiggins offers an illuminating challenge to this popular dogma in ‘Locke, Butler and the Stream of Consciousness: and Men as a Natural Kind’. Wiggins does not claim that ‘person’ actually is a natural kind term; but he argues hard for the advantages of regarding it as something like a natural kind classification. The problem is that, whatever its merits, there are obvious and fatal objections to the view that person is a natural kind. My aim is to present a modification of the natural kind thesis which avoids these objections and retains the attractions of the basic position.