Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T20:59:41.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Grain Objection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Michael B. Green
Michael B. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many philosophers, both past and present, object to materialism not from any romantic anti-scientific bent, but from sheer inability to understand the thesis. It seems utterly inconceivable to some that qualia should exist in a world which is entirely material. This paper investigates the grain objection, a much neglected argument which purports to prove that sensations could not be brain events. Three versions are examined in great detail. The plausibility of the first version is shown to depend crucially on whether one holds a direct or non-direct theory of perception. Only on the latter is this version plausible. An analysis of the second “semantic” version concludes that a materialist description and explanation of the world should not be expected to transparently convey all that would be of interest or importance to human beings. The final version explicitly makes use of Grover Maxwell's non-direct perceptual theory of structural realism. Although a confusion is charged to Maxwell between phenomenal and objective properties, the critical difficulty for the grain objection is its failure to characterize “structure” from a non-percipient point of view. As the grain objection is ultimately found wanting, the real difficulty for materialism crystallizes as its irreconciliability with the mere existence of sentience, which seems to force some sort of emergence upon us.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1979 , pp. 559 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

This paper was written while the author was a Visiting Research Associate at the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, for which special thanks is due its director, Grover Maxwell. This paper has profited from the author's discussions with Paul Meehl, Keith Gunderson, Grover Maxwell, and Wade Savage, none of whom is responsible for any defects it may still bear.

References

Aune, B. (1966), “Feigl on the Mind-Body Problem.” In Feyerabend and Maxwell's Mind, Matter and Method: Essays in Philosophy of Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 17–39.Google Scholar
Borst, C. V. (1970), (ed). The Mind-Body Identity Theory, New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodbeck, M. (1966), “Mental and Physical: Identity versus Sameness.” In Feyerabend and Maxwell's Mind, Matter and Method: Essays in Philosophy of Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl, 40–58.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. (1967), The “Mental” and the “Physical”: The Essay and a Postscript. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1963a), “Comment: ‘Mental events and the Brain’.” The Journal of Philosophy, LX. Reprinted in Borsts' The Mind-Body Identity Theory, 140–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1963b), “Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem.” Review of Metaphysics, XVII. Reprinted in Borsts' The Mind-Body Identity Theory, 142–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. and Maxwell, G., (1966), Mind, Matter, and Method: Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Gunderson, K. (1971), “Asymmetries and mind-body perplexities.” In Radner, M. & Winokur, S. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 273–309.Google Scholar
Gunderson, K. (1974), “The Texture of Mentality.” In R. Bambrough (Ed.), Wisdom: Twelve Essays. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 173–195.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890) The Principles of Psychology. vol. I. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Kekes, J. (1977) “Physicalism and Subjectivity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 37(4): 533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1966) “An Argument for the Identity Theory.” Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1967) “Scientific Methodology and the Causal Theory of Perception.” In Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 148–177.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1970a), “Theories, Perception, and Structural Realism.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, University of Pittsburgh Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. IV, Colodny, R. G. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 3–34.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1970b), “Structural Realism and the Meaning of Theoretical Terms.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. IV. Radner, M. and Winokur, S. (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 181–192.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1978), “Rigid Designators and Mind-Body Identity.” In Perception and Cognition: Issues in the Foundations of Psychology. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IX. Savage, C. W. (ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1966), “The Compleat Autocerebroscopist: A Thought-Experiment on Professor Feigl's Mind-Body Identity Thesis.” In Feyerabend and Maxwell's Mind, Matter and Method, 103–180.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. and Sellars, W. (1956), “The Concept of Emergence.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. I. Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 239–252.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1974), “What is it like to be a bat?” Philosophical Review 83: 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1964), Personal Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1970) “Is Semantics Possible?” In Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Schwartz, S. P. (ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 102–118.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1973), “Meaning and Reference.” Journal of Philosophy LXX. Reprinted in Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds. Schwartz, S. P. (ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 119–132.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1965), “Mind-Body Identity, Privacy and Categories.” Review of Metaphysics, XIX. Reprinted in Borsts' The Mind-Body Identity Theory.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1970a), “In Defense of Eliminative Materialism.” Review of Metaphysics, XXIV, 112–121.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1970b), “Incorrigibility as the Mark of the Mental.” Journal of Philosophy LXVII, 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1948), Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Schlagel, R. H. (1977), “The Mind-Brain Identity Impasse.” American Philosophical Quarterly 14, 231–237.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1956), “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. I. Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 254–329.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1965), “The Identity Approach to the Mind-Body Problem.” Review of Metaphysics, XVIII, 430–451.Google Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. (1959), “Sensations and brain processes.” In Borst's The Mind-Body Identity Theory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, S. (1971), “Fact and artifact in the psychology of schizophrenia.” In M. Hammer, K. Salzinger, and S. Sutton (eds.). Psychopathology: Contributions from the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Wallace, J. (1977), “Only In The Context Of A Sentence Do Words Have Any Meaning.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. II: Studies in the Philosophy of Language. French, P. A., Uehling, T. E. Jr., and Wettstein, H. K., (eds.). Morris: University of Minnesota Press, 144–164.Google Scholar