eliminative materialism

Question 1

basics

Answer 1

folk psychology- what we use rn to understand mental states
ontologically reduced water to h20
we should to the same to FP to neruoscience
FP hasnt changed neuronscience has expanded and will take over FP
we can eliminate entities eg caloric
FP misrepresents true nature of human beings

for elimin 
FP inadquate explaiantions for human nature 
neruoscience is expanding 
science expands and developed 
FP hasnt changed since greek 
not accurate eg black plague- bad air

Question 2

issues

Answer 2

our centainity about teh existence of our mental states
folk psychology has good predictive and explanatory powers
eliminative msterialism is self refuting

Question 3

our centainty about the existence of our mental states

Answer 3

p1 when you look into your own mind you aopear to be directly awre of your own mental states such as your beliefs desires and senations
p2 it is absurd to deny the existence o what one is directly aware of
c so eliminativism is wrong to deny the existence of mental states picked out by the concepts of folk psychology

Question 4

folk psychology has good predictive and explanatory powers

Answer 4

FP still best
bc neuroscience hasnt said an alter yet
history- how to work together if u didnt say what ur desires were eg hunting food
science of psycho continues to develop FP

Question 5

elimin is self refusing

Answer 5

p1 elimin claims that mental states such as beliefs dont exist
p2 but if beliuefs dont exist then it is not possible to believe that EM is true. and if the language used to articulate the theordy doesnt really express genuine proposition or beliefs then it is meaningless
c1 therefore according to the EM own view it is not possible to belive and coherently articulate EM
c2 and so the theory is self refusing

Question 6

response

Answer 6

p1 anti vitalist claim that vital spirit diesnt exist
p2 but if vital spirits doesnt exist then the vitalist is not alive
p3 if the anti vitalist is not alive then the words they used to articulate their views are not expressions of genuine belief and so are meaningless
c so according to the anti vitalist own view it is not possible to believe their claim and so anti vitalism is self refuting

Question 7

defence

Answer 7

begs the questions
presupposes that vital spirit is needed to be alive
the anti vitualist hopes to give an alter

analogy is weak
EM is denying the category of belief
if belief doesnt exist then the theories cant be articulated