PHYSICALISM arguments + responses Flashcards
Behaviourism issues summary:
- Applied dualist arguments
- Hilary Putnams ‘Super Spartans’
- Circularity
- Multiple Realisability
- Asymmetry
Folk psychology issues summary
- explanatory failures
- Stagnant and unproductive
- Not coherent with other scientific knowledge
Eliminative materialism issues summary:
- Counter intuitive
- Folk psychology has good explanatory and predictive power
- Eliminative Materialism is self-refuting
Functionalism issues summary:
- Inverted Qualia
- The China Brain
- The Knowledge argument
Machine State functionalism issues summary:
- Searle’s Chinese room
2. ^ Syntax not semantics
BEHAVIOURISM
PROBLEM: Philosophical zombies + Mary’s room
ISSUE FOR PHYSICALISM
ZOMBIES: The mind cannot be entirely physical / down to behaviour if its metaphysically possible for the body and mind to be different things
MARY’s ROOM: The mind cannot be entirely physical / down to behaviour is Mary gains new knowledge when experiencing red for the first time.
BEHAVIOURISM
PROBLEM: PUTNAM super spartans
- Imagine a community of ‘super-spartans’
- People who disapprove greatly of showing pain = all pain behaviour has been suppressed
- Yet they could still be in pain. Pain is conceivable without any associated pain behaviour.
- So pain can’t be understood just in terms of pain behaviour.
BEHAVIOURISM -
RYLE RESPONSE to: super spartans
RYLE can solve this issue by arguing Soft behaviourism fixes this as they still have a disposition to pain behaviour they just don’t display it
BEHAVIOURISM -
PUTNAM RESPONSE to RYEL: super super spartans
Super super spartans: are so used to suppressing pain related behaviour that they do not even say they’re in pain or have dispositions to do so.
BEHAVIOURISM -
POSSIBLE RESPONSE to: super super spartans
- Impossible to recognise the concept of pain, without the concept of pain.
- SO, it would be Impossible to distinguish which behaviour they were supposed to be suppressing in the first place, UNLESS they did have the behavioural disposition to pain.
BEHAVIOURISM
PROBLEM: Circularity
- When you ask why someone is behaving a certain way you would refer back to mental states - that which you are saying you can replace by behaviours.
- E.G. fear = run away from the snake. But to explain why you re running away you would say ‘because I believe the snake will attack me’ Thus referring back to mental states.
BEHAVIOURISM
PROBLEM: Multiple realisability
- Multiple different mental states displayed in one way: crying behaviour could mean you’re happy, excited, overwhelmed, sad etc.
- One mental state displayed in different ways: Grief can be shown through angry (screaming), sad (crying), numb (lack of behaviour) behaviours
- Some could be experiencing one mental state and only display one through behaviour: e.g. they are thirsty, but believe the drinks poisoned and so only show the behaviour of avoidance (we wouldn’t see through this that they were thirsty)
BEHAVIOURISM
PROBLEM: Asymmetry
- If behaviourism was true it would follow that it would be easier to understand other peoples mental status than our own
- This is because its easier to observe other peoples behaviour than our own
- Yet it seems we understand our mental states the most = there’s an asymmetry here
BEHAVIOURISM -
RYLE RESPONSE to: Asymmetry
- What about when we are “thinking quietly to ourselves” - Internalised speaking?
- Ryle argues this is a behaviour
BEHAVIOURISM -
RESPONSE TO RYLE’s: thinking quietly
- This isn’t always shown through behaviours like internal monologues.
- This can be done in other ways that aren’t behavioural like visualisation, feelings, sensations?
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY
PROBLEM: Explanatory failures
- Folk psychology fails to provide any explanations for many mind processes
- For example, folk psychology can’t explain mental illness, sleep or learning.
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY - explanatory failures
RESPONSE Folk-psychology has good predictive and explanatory power
- Folk psychology does explain and make fairly accurate predictions about how people behave,
- E.G. When he feels nervous he talks really fast
- In contrast, neuroscience is pretty bad at predicting behaviour – at least at present.
- Brain = highly complex making it incredibly difficult for neuroscience to model and predict even the simple behaviours
- Unlikely even the best neuroscientists with the most advanced equipment, could more accurately predict a typical human’s behaviour than folk psychology.
- Therefore folk psychology is the best hypothesis
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY
PROBLEM: Stagnant and unproductive
- There has been no progress made in Folk psychology since ancient Greek times
- Folk psychology is still the same as it was thousands of years ago.
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY - stagnant and unproductive
CRANE’s RESPONSE
- The reason that Folk Psychology seems stagnant is because it is a fine theory of the mind and how it works.
- Evidence has not come along to refute it so it has not needed to change.
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY - stagnant and unproductive
KIM STERENLY’s RESPONSE
- We now commonly discuss why people do things in terms of subconscious desires (FP term for this is freudian slips).
- We can also see how subconscious desires occur in neuronal activity.
- Therefore, FP is in line with new scientific theories such as neuroscience.
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY
PROBLEM: Not Coherent with other scientific theories
- Other disciplines support each other (biology, chemistry, physics) FP is isolated
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY - Not Coherent with other scientific theories
RESPONSE CRANE:
- Why should the mind be reduced to the same physics as neuroscience, biology etc?
- Though our actions can be explained through causes in neurobiology, we do not need to remove our original terms
FOLK PSYCHOLOGY
RESPONSE to CRANE: why should we remove our original terms
- This 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.
ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM
PROBLEM: Counter intuitive
- Intuitive certainty of the existence of my mind should takes priority over other considerations.
- It is counter-intuitive to say that mental states don’t exist – they are the most obvious thing in the world to us.
- Think about Descartes; the minds existence was the most definite thing to him (cogito)