eliminative materialism

Question 1

define eliminative materialism

Answer 1

Some or all common-sense (“folk-psychological”) mental states/properties do not exist and our common-sense understanding is radically mistaken

Question 2

define folk psychology

Answer 2

everyday common explanations of behaviour we use

Question 3

argument for eliminativism? using folk psychology

Answer 3

1. FP isn’t significantly different from obsolete scientific theories like phlogiston
2. Phlogiston and similar theories are false, do not apply to reality, and the entities they describe do not exist
3. so, it is likely that FP is false, and that the entities it describes do not exist
4. FP is the theory that intentional states cause behaviour
5. so intentional states likely do not exist

Question 4

what are Churchland’s three issues with FP?

Answer 4

1. EXPLANATORY FAILURES (mental illness, creative imagination, intelligence differences, sleep, memory)
2. STAGNANT AND UNPRODUCTIVE (a theory of ‘retreat, infertility and decadence’, no progress)
3. NOT COHERENT WITH OTHER SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (chemistry, physics, biology, psychology)

—> RESPONSE: folk psychology doesn’t intend to do the above, it intends to be a mode of communication

Question 5

Three critiques of eliminate isn’t

Answer 5

1. CERTAINTY OF EXISTENCE
   (It’s counter intuitive to deny the existence of such an obvious, immediate thing like intentional states, phenomenology)
   RESPONSE: there’s still no evidence for them
2. SELF REFUTING
   “Believe that beliefs don’t exist”
   RESPONSE: you can’t express what it is to accept it without using FP because FP is so ingrained in language
3. PREDICTIVE + EXPLANATORY POWER

Question 6

eliminitavism essay plan

Answer 6

EM is correct that intentional states do not exist, but we shouldn’t discard FP as it remains a useful method of communication and does not need to be scientifically correct
Too reductive
1. phlogiston argument
— goes against intuition (BUT intuition isn’t good evidence)
— is self refuting (BUT this is a language issue, not a theory issue)

2. Churchland’s arguments for why F.P should be discarded:
   — lacks explanatory powers (BUT it isn’t trying to scientifically explain everything, it doesn’t have to)
   — stagnant and unproductive (BUT it has changed)
   — doesn’t fit other scientific theories (BUT it doesn’t have to because it’s not a scientific theory)