Abstract
In his reply to my article 'In Pain', Michael Tye takes me to reject Representationalism. In this response, I correct that impression. More crucially, Tye suggests that he may deal with the invalidity of the inferences I discussed in the original article by distinguishing two spatial senses of 'in'. I provide other cases which suggest that he will have to proliferate spatial senses of 'in' to explain the invalidity of a whole host of other inferences. I suggest that this speaks in favour of the claim that there is a sense of 'in' which is used in ascribing a certain state to an object.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 153-154 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Analysis |
| Volume | 62 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2002 |