Eliminative Materialism Flashcards
Explain the theory of Eliminative Materialism
It is a physicalist theory that argues problems arise cause of ‘Folk psychology = the way we talk about the mind)
‘some or all common sense (folk psychology) mental states/properties do not exist + radically mistaken. The Churchlands argue the way in which we commonly think and talk about the mind is fundamentally flawed (there are NO mental states whatsoever its mistake) so they believe that we should abandon our mental concepts, and talk about brain processes instead.
- Eliminativism says that there are no mental properties ultimately we should concern ourselves with neuroscience (brain processes)
- We are confused by ‘folk psychology’ (the way we talk about our minds; beliefs + desire)
- We must reject any empirical theory which is not fit for purpose - i.e. History of the science of heat ‘caloric fluid’ 18th century belief that if hot things possessed more caloric fluid than cold things they should weigh more. It is not accurate and has been disproven by science. If the theory is unsuccessful, we shouldnt think that the hypnotised thing exists. If folk psychology is unsuccessful we shouldn’t believe that beliefs , desires exist.
What are the 3 reasons the churchlands argue we should reject Folk Psychology?
- Folk psychology cannot explain much about the mind, e.g. mental illness, intelligence, sleep, perception, learning then we should reject it.- Churchlands argue we should look at neuroscience to understand these concepts.
- Folk psychology has not progressed in 2,500 years (plato + aristotle time)
- Folk psychology cannot be made coherent with neuroscience(the way we talk about the mind doesn’t fit with the way neuroscience does)
Churchland: we understand and explain each other’s behaviour by referring to beliefs,
(We need to use + look at neuroscience instead of folk psychology)
Explain the problem of intentionality against Eliminative Materialism
Intentionality;
Mental states are ‘about’ or ‘directed onto’ something e.g. belief about paris, desire for chocolate
Intentionality has nothing to do with intentions
An intentional mental state has intentional content
So Intentionality means that mental states have content - there about something. So its a problem for philosophy of mind. The Churchlands however would argue that intentionality is just folk physiology leading us astray thus its not a criticism.
Irreducibility;
How could anything physical have intentionality? Physical states are never ‘about’ anything
So Folk psychology cant be reduced to neuroscience
Intentionality only seems like an issue due to Folk psychology.
State the 4 main criticisms of Eliminate Materialism
- Folk Psychology is a good predictive + has good explanatory power.
- Our certainty about the existence of our mental states takes priority of other considerations: (we know we’ve got mental states so any claim that we haven’t isn’t true)
- Intentionality
- The articulation of eliminative materialism as a theory of self-refuting
Explain the criticism ‘Our certainty about the existence of our mental states takes priority of other considerations’ against Eliminative Materialism an there reply.
- Nothing could be more certain to me than the fact that I have mental states
I.e. Cogito Ergo Sum - How can we deny our thoughts are real things? I think therefore i am - backing up the criticism of our certainty of the existence of our mental states (we know we’ve got mental states so any claim that we haven’t isn’t true)
Eliminative Materialisms Reply;
- What seems obvious can be false (we’ve been wrong about things in the past)
Does the Sun move around the Earth? - Churchland does not deny the existence of psychological phenomena – he denies that folk psychology is the right account of these phenomena
Can we be certain of a theory? We may think we have mental states but we don’t.
Explain the criticism ‘The articulation of eliminative materialism as a theory of self-refuting’ against Eliminative Materialism and there reply.
- Eliminativism tries to change our beliefs by presenting arguments
- Arguments are expressions of beliefs and rely on the meaning of words
- Yet it claims there are no beliefs and no meanings!
Any argument for eliminativism refutes itself – its conclusion contradicts its own assumptions
Eliminative Materialisms Reply;
The criticism assumes that folk psychology is the correct account of meaning
‘there is no vital force; life is chemistry’ ‘If there is no vital force, you would be dead! The fact that you speak refutes you.’
Counter objection;
It is a conceptual truth that claims and arguments are ‘about’ something
- Eliminativism denies that anything is ‘about’ anything
It is inconceivable that folk psychology is false, since the very idea of ‘being false’ depends on folk psychology being true
- Folk psychology is not an empirical theory, but a condition of intelligibility and therefore, it cannot be eliminated
If Churchland is right that folk psychology doesn’t reduce to neuroscience, then it is irreducible, not eliminable
Explain the criticism of Eliminative Materialism that Folk Psychology is unfit for purpose ‘Folk psychology is a good predictive’
Folk-Psychology has a good predicate and explanatory power and so is the best hypothesis.
- Folk psychology’s purpose is to explain human action + eliminitvists only reject it on the basis that it doesn’t explain mental illness etc however this is not necessarily adequate grounds to reject folk psychology altogether.
Folk psychology explains + predicts action well + is often far more successfully then neuroscience + is often the basis of developments in scientific psychology which is evident through experiments and incidences like Pavlov’s Dogs.
Pavlov highlighted the significance of ‘Classical conditioning’ the behavioural procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus is paired with a previously neutral stimulus. First the dogs were presented with the food and in response they salivated, hence the food was the unconditioned stimulus and salivation was an unconditioned (innate) response. In doing so, Pavlov highlighted that dogs could be conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell if that sound was repeatedly presented at the same time that they were given food.
Therefore folk psychology is adequate.
What would Eliminative Materialists respond to the criticism that Folk Psychology has is a good predictive
Folk psychology is ultimately superficial. Overall folk psychological explanations are very weak compared to other areas of science and consequently neuroscience can provide more answers than folk psychology and - developments in this field of neuroscience are constantly uncovering the true nature of the brain whereas folk psychology does not achieve this
