Harvard University
Department of Philosophy
PhD, 1981
Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America
Areas of Specialization
Philosophy of Mind
  •  31
    Are qualia just representations?
    Mind and Language 12 (1): 101-13. 1997.
  •  53
    Raw Feeling
    Philosophical Review 105 (1): 94. 1996.
    Kirk’s aim in this book is to bridge what he calls “the intelligibility gap,” expressed in the question, “How could complex patterns of neural firing amount to this?”. He defends a position that he describes as “broadly functionalist,” which consists of several theses. I will briefly review them.
  •  60
    Philosophy as Massage
    Philosophical Topics 26 (1-2): 159-178. 1999.
  •  16
    Mental Imagery: On the Limits of Cognitive Science
    Philosophical Review 101 (3): 670. 1992.
  •  149
    Experience and representation
    In Aleksandar Jokic & Quentin Smith (eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford University Press. 2002.
  •  14
    Review of Scott Sturgeon: Matters of Mind: Consciousness, Reason and Nature (review)
    with Scott Sturgeon
    British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3): 629-634. 2001.
  •  219
    Conceivability and the metaphysics of mind
    Noûs 32 (4): 449-480. 1998.
    Materialism in the philosophy of mind is the thesis that the ultimate nature of the mind is physical; there is no sharp discontinuity in nature between the mental and the non-mental. Anti-materialists asser t that, on the contrary, mental phenomena are different in kind from physical phenomena. Among the weapons in the arsenal of anti-materialists, one of the most potent has been the conceivability argument. When I conceive of the mental, it seems utterly unlike the physical. Anti-materialists i…Read more
  •  40
  •  67
  •  161
    On the Phenomenology of Thought
    In Tim Bayne and Michelle Montague (ed.), Cognitive Phenomenology, Oxford University Press. pp. 103. 2011.
  •  99
    Intentional Chemistry
    Grazer Philosophische Studien 46 (1): 103-134. 1993.
    This paper discusses the debate between atomists and molecularists regarding the nature of mental content. A molecularist believes that some, but not all, of a mental symbol's inferential connections to other mental symbols, are at least partly constitutive of that symbol's intentional content. An atomist believes that none of the symbol's inferential connections play such a constitutive role. The paper is divided into two principal parts. First, attempts by Michael Devitt and Georges Rey to def…Read more