Related Publications – Ullin T. Place (1924-2000)

20 publications that cite Place (1960). Materialism as a scientific hypothesis.

Baier, K. (1962). Smart on Sensations. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, X, 57-68.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [3 referring publications by Place] [1 reprinting collections]

Dreßing, A. R. (2015). Conscious intentions: Do we need a creation myth? - A Commentary on Elisabeth Pacherie. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds). Open MIND (Chapter 29 ). MIND Group. doi:10.15502/9783958570849
[Abstract]We experience ourselves as agents, performing goal-directed actions in the world. In her paper about Conscious Intentions: The social creation myth Pacherie develops a creation myth about the function of conscious intentions, based on her hierarchical concept of individual motor actions and joint action. In this creation myth, conscious intentions are not understood as internal mental states with a teleofunctional role. Having a conscious intention exerts a specific contribution to motor control and conscious intentions might have a potential causal power in this myth.
In this commentary I want to postulate, that Pacherie’s social creation myth is more than a myth but rather the search for an explanation of the function of conscious intentions in the physical world. It tries to explain the feature of the intention being conscious that endows it with its particular causal function. Yet — speaking about a causal function — the potential analytical and neuroscientific limitations of a causal function of conscious intentions in the social creation myth have to be analysed with regard to the argument of causal closure and results of experimental approaches to the causal relevance of conscious intentions. I argue that despite these limitations the social creation myth could be an important step on the way of finding an explanation about the function of conscious intentions, if the question about the function of conscious intentions is slightly adjusted and is not understood in a strictly causal way.
[Citing Place (1960)]

Nath, S. (2013). U. T. Place as a Behaviourist. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(9), 183-185. www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0913/ijsrp-p2125.pdf
[Abstract]U. T. Place is rightly called the forerunners of Physicalism or Identity Theory of Mind. But he also claims himself to be a behaviourist. Like the behaviourist he believed that mental events can be elucidated purely in terms of hypothetical propositions about behaviour. These can also be elucidated by the reports of the first person’s experiences. He has many arguments in favour of behaviourism for which he is called a behaviourist. In this article I shall give a glimpse of behaviourism, particularly of logical behaviourism and then explain the circumstances under which Place is called a behaviourist.
[Citing Graham & Valentine (2004)] [Citing Place (1954)] [Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1967)] [Citing Place (1988a)] [Citing Place (1989a)] [Citing Place (1990a)] [Citing Place (1999d)]
Download: Nath (2013) UT Place as a Behaviourist.pdf

Nath, S. (2014). J. J. C. Smart in defence of Place's identity theory of mind. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 19(2), 26-29.
[Abstract]In the history of philosophy different philosophers have extended their efforts to give a solution of mind body problem. In modern period Rene Descartes explained the mind –body problem from the dualistic point of view. Behaviourism, on the other hand, does not believe [in] the existence of [the] mind. This theory emphasises only on behaviour. But none could give a satisfactory solution of the problem. Identity theory of mind also attempted to give a solution from the materialistic point of view. This theory is developed by U.T.Place, J.J.C. Smart,H. Feigl and some other thinkers. This theory came into existence as a reaction to the behaviourism. The main thesis of the theory is - the mental states and processes and the brain states and processes are identical. Before the establishment of his own theory Smart tries to answer some of the possible objections that might be raised by the critics against Place‟s theory. But this does not mean that Smart accepts Place‟s theory to the full extent. Rather he claims that his arguments for identity theory is very much different from that of Place and this he very sharply stated in his article “Sensations and Brain Processes” (1959). In this paper I shall try to explore some possible objections that might be raised by the critics against Place‟s theory as well as answers given by Smart and subsequently tries to show the issues on which Smart agrees with Place. Finally, efforts will be made to highlight Smart‟s difference from that of Place and his own view on the Identity Theory.
[Citing Place (1954)] [Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1967)] [Citing Place (1988a)] [Citing Place (1989a)] [Citing Place (1990a)] [Citing Place (1999d)] [Citing Graham & Valentine (2004)]
Download: Nath (2014) JJC Smart in Defence of Place's Identity Theory of Mind.pdf

Passmore, J. A. (1966). A hundred years of philosophy (second edition). Duckworth.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [1 referring publications by Place]

Polger, T. W. (2009). Identity theories. Philosophy Compass, 4, 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00227.x
[Abstract]Identity theories are those that hold that ‘sensations are brain processes’. In particular, they hold that mental ⁄ psychological state kinds are identical to brain ⁄ neuroscientific state kinds. In this paper, I isolate and explain some of the key features of contemporary identity theories. They are then contrasted with the main live alternatives by means of considering the two most important lines of objection to identity theories.
[Citing Place (1956) in context] [Citing Place (1960) in context]

Polger, T. W. (2011). Are sensations still brain processes? Philosophical Psychology, 24(1), 1–21.
[Abstract]Fifty years ago J. J. C. Smart published his pioneering paper, ‘‘Sensations and Brain Processes.’’ It is appropriate to mark the golden anniversary of Smart’s publication by considering how well his article has stood up, and how well the identity theory itself has fared. In this paper I first revisit Smart’s (1959) text, reflecting on how it has weathered the years. Then I consider the status of the identity theory in current philosophical thinking, taking into account the objections and replies that Smart discussed as well as some that he did not anticipate. Finally, I offer a brief manifesto for the identity theory, providing a small list of the claims that I believe the contemporary identity theorist should accept. As it turns out, these are more or less the ones that Smart defended fifty years ago.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1988a)]

Puccetti, R. (1964). Science, analysis, and the problem of mind. Philosophy, 39(149), 249-259. doi:10.1017/S0031819100055625
[Citing Place (1960)]

Shapiro, L. A., & Polger, T. W. (2012). Identity, variability, and multiple realization in the special sciences. New Perspectives on Type Identity: The Mental and the Physical (pp. 264-88).
[Abstract]Compositional variation and variability in nature is abundant. This fact is often thought to entail that multiple realization is also ubiquitous. In particular, compositional variability among cognitive creatures is thought to provide conclusive evidence against the mind-brain type identity theory. In this chapter we argue that the type identity theory, properly understood, is compatible with a wide range of compositional and constitutional variation and variability. Similarly, contrary to received wisdom, variation poses no threat to reductionist ventures. Multiple realization as we understand it, requires a specific pattern of variation. Multiple realization is not self-contradictory; the kinds of variation that qualify as multiple realization are not impossible, but they are less common in general than is widely supposed.
[Citing Place (1956) in context] [Citing Place (1960) in context] [Citing Place (1988a )]

Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, LXVIII, 141-156.
Note:
A revised version with new references appeared in V. C. Chappell (Ed.) (1962), The philosophy of mind. Prentice-Hall. Later reprints are of this version.
[Citing Place (1956) in context] [Citing Place (1960)] [24 referring publications by Place] [Is replied by] [7 reprinting collections]

Smart, J. J. C. (1966). Philosophy and scientific plausibility. In P. K. Feyerabend & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Mind, matter and method: Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl (pp. 377-390). University of Minnesota Press.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1959)] [Citing Place (1960)]

Smart, J. J. C. (1967). Comments on the papers. In C. F. Presley (Ed.), The Identity Theory of Mind (pp. 84-93). University of Queensland Press.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [6 referring publications by Place]

Smart, J. J. C. (1971). Reports of immediate experiences. Synthese, 22, 346-359. doi:10.1007/BF00413432
[Citing Place (1956) in context] [Citing Place (1960) in context] [Citing Place (1967) in context]

Smart, J. J. C. (2006). Metaphysical illusions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(2), 167–175. doi:10.1080/00048400600758912
[Abstract]The paper begins by considering David Armstrong's beautiful paper ‘The Headless Woman Illusion and the Defence of Materialism’, which conjectures how we get the illusion that there are non-physical qualia. There are discussions of other metaphysical illusions, that there is a passage of time, that we have libertarian free will, and that consciousness is ineffable (which last also relates to Armstrong), and of their possible explanations. Moral: avoid appeal to so called intuition or phenomenology.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)]

Soleimani Khourmouji, M. (2015). Place goes wrong in treating mind-brain relationship. Clarifying why identity theory is neither reasonable nor a mere scientific problem in disguise. Philosophical Investigations, 9(17), 173-202. http://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir
[Abstract]U. T. Place claims that philosophical problems concerning the true nature of mind-brain relationship disappears or is settled adhering to materialism, especially type identity theory of mind. He takes above claim as a reasonable scientific hypothesis. I shall argue why it is not as he claims. At first, to pave the way for refutation, I will briefly clarify Place's approach to the subject in hand; although the rest of the paper will also contain more details about his position. Then, I will reduce his position into four theses and try to prove that the main claim of type identity theory is neither reasonable nor a mere scientific problem in disguise. I think that we ought to regard type identity theory, at most, just as a hypothesis which approximately displays the function of mind-brain relationship but tells us nothing justifiably about its true nature.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1988a)] [Citing Place (1991f)] [Citing Place (1996j)] [Citing Place (1999e)] [Citing Place (2000d)] [Citing Place (2000b)] [Citing Place (2000a)] [Citing Place (2004)]
Download: Soleimani (2015) Place Goes Wrong in Treating Mind-Brain Relationship.pdf

Tamminga, A. (2009). In de ban van de metafysica. De identiteitstheorieën van Place, Smart en Armstrong [Under the spell of metaphysics. Place's, Smart's and Armstrong's identity theories.]. Tijdschrift voor filosofie, 71, 553-575.
[Abstract]We investigate the genesis of metaphysical physicalism and its influence on the development of Place's, Smart's, and Armstrong's ideas on the relation between the mental and the physical. We first reconstruct the considerations that led Armstrong and Smart to a 'scientific' world view. We call 'metaphysical physicalism' the comprehensive theory on reality, truth, and meaning which ensued from this world view. Against the background of this metaphysical physicalism we study Armstrong's and Smart's analyses of secondary properties and the genesis of their identity theories of mind and matter. We argue that fundamental revisions in Smart's theories on colour and consciousness were driven by his aspiration to fully work out the philosophical consequences of metaphysical physicalism. Finally, we briefly consider the role metaphysical physicalism has played in twentieth-century philosophy of mind.
[Citing Place (1954)] [Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)]
Download: Tamminga (2009) In de Ban van de Metafysica.pdf

Tartaglia, J. (2005). Place, Ullin Thomas (1924-2000). In S. Brown (Ed.)., The Dictionary of Twentieth-Century British Philosophers (pp. 785-789). Bristol: Thoemmes. doi:10.5040/9781350052437-0328
[Citing Place (1954)] [Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)] [Citing Place (1967)] [Citing Place (1990a)] [Citing Place (2000d)] [Citing Place (2002)]
Download: Tartaglia (2005) Place, Ullin Thomas (1924-2000).pdf

Tartaglia, J. (2011). Philosophy between religion and science. Essays in Philosophy, 12(2), 224-241. doi:10.5840/eip20111223
[Abstract]Philosophical concerns are evidenced from the beginning of human literature, which have no obvious connection to philosophy’s mainstream epistemological and metaphysical problematic. I reject the views that the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question, and that the discipline is united by methodology, arguing that it must be united by subject matter. The origins of the discipline provide reasons to doubt the existence of a unifying subject matter, however, and scepticism about philosophy also arises from its a priori methodology and apparent lack of progress. In response, I argue that philosophy acquired a distinctive subject matter when the concept of transcendence was introduced into attempts to gain a systematic understanding of the world and our place within it; philosophy thereby pursues the same aim of achieving a synoptic vision of reality as religion, but resembles science in its development and employment of rigorous methodologies. Philosophy’s subject matter explains why it must be pursued a priori, and it only appears not to have progressed when aims are neglected, and it is inappropriately assimilated to science.
[Citing Place (1956) in context] [Citing Place (1960) in context]

Van Fraassen, B. C. (1996). Science, materialism, and false consciousness. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.), Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge (pp. 149-181). Rowman Littlefield.
[Abstract]As activity, science has become a large-scale cultural phenomenon. As product, it is drawn on by industry, agriculture, and medicine, thus affecting not only the scene of its activity but all the rest of the world as well. Western philosophy has always harboured a tradition which regards scientific inquiry as a paradigm for rational inquiry in general. Yet almost every philosopher in that tradition has pointed to limits of this paradigm and its scope.
Every philosophy provides a different lens through which to view this object of common admiration. In this essay I shall reflect on two views of science which are at first glance inimical to each other. The first is Pierre Duhem's, who saw science as neutral on all issues of metaphysics, theology, and religion. The second is exemplified by Paul Feyerabend, who called for alternate research programs guided by rival metaphysics, and argued that such rivalry has always been a driving force in science. I will argue that Duhem is right, in the main, though our picture of science must be leavened by the insights of the contrary point of view. This will not be an archaeological inquiry into those thinkers' thought; I will make it mainly an independent reflection on these same issues.
[Citing Place (1956)] [Citing Place (1960)]