By the same authors

From the same journal

More in Pain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle



Publication details

DatePublished - Apr 2002
Issue number2
Number of pages2
Pages (from-to)153-154
Original languageEnglish


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.

Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations