Eliminative materialism Flashcards
what does Eliminative materialism argue
argues that terms like ‘belief’ and ‘pain’ don’t correspond to anything specific. They might be a useful and practical way of talking about mental states but when we actually look at what they really are, they can’t be reduced to anything in particular.
Eliminative materialists think that a proper analysis of mental states will look more like neuroscience, with specific descriptions of the mechanics of the brain.
what is churchlands folk psychology
refers to the everyday psychological concepts and explanations of behaviour we use
folk psychology laws have reasonable predictive power but they’re not perfect. You can often predict how someone will act using folk psychology (e.g. when people get angry they shout and stomp about) – but not always.
probs with folk psychology
- cant explain mental illness, sleep or learning
- intentionality in folk psych doesnt fit well with other areas of science - *We talk of having a thought about something, for example “I am thinking about an elephant”, but it’s not clear how a physical thing can be about anything in this way. *
what does churchland say about probs with folk psychology
suggest folk psychology may not be the most accurate way to think about the mind as they dont refer to anyhting that exists in reality
folk psych vs neuroscience
Churchland isn’t saying ordinary people should stop using words like ‘belief’ and ‘pain’. However, he is saying that when we’re doing science or philosophy of mind we shouldn’t use folk psychology terms because they’re not technically accurate. We should look to eliminate them in favour of the correct explanations.
probs facing rejecting folk psychology
- directy certainty of folk psych
- folk psych has good predictive power
- self-refuting
direct certainity of folk psychology
probs facing rejecting folk psychology
In rejecting folk psychology, eliminative materialism goes against many intuitions we have.
For example, Descartes took ‘I think’ to be his very first certainty. We could argue that the direct certainty we have about our own mental states should take priority over physicalist considerations.
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY HAS GOOD PREDICTIVE POWER
probs facing rejecting folk psychology
we can respond that folk psychology does explain and make fairly accurate predictions about how people behave
In contrast, neuroscience is pretty bad at predicting behaviour – at least at present. The brain is a highly complex structure and this makes it incredibly difficult for neuroscience to model and predict even the simple behaviours in the bullet points above. It’s doubtful whether a team of the best neuroscientists in the world, using the most advanced equipment available today, could more accurately predict a typical human’s behaviour than folk psychology.
SELF-REFUTING
probs facing rejecting folk psychology
Eliminative materialism claims that beliefs don’t exist – But, in arguing for eliminative materialism, Churchland is expressing his belief in the truth of this theory.
Arguments are expressions of belief and so, if Churchland believes that eliminative materialism is true, then this disproves his own theory: Churchland has proved that beliefs exist.
response clearly commits the fallacy of begging the question. It assumes the very thing it’s trying to prove: that beliefs exist
response to ‘In rejecting folk psychology, eliminative materialism goes against many intuitions we have’
However, this response misunderstands eliminative materialism. Churchland is not denying the existence of the mental phenomena we refer to as ‘beliefs’, ‘pain’, ‘thought’, etc., he’s just saying this folk psychology isn’t the technically correct theory as to their nature.
how can we push the ‘SELF-REFUTING’ crit even further
Eliminative materialism criticies folk psychology for talking about intentional content (i.e. how thoughts can be about something) but offers no neuroscientific alternative. We may be able to eliminate beliefs, but eliminating intentionality is seemingly impossible. To even make sense of statements like “eliminative materialism is true” or “folk psychology is false” or “this is a more accurate scientific theory” we must presuppose intentionality – we must understand what these statements are about.
