Eliminative Materialism Exam Questions

• materialist view denying existence of folk psychology bc it doesn't fit into scientific world view
• key thinkers: Patricia + Paul Churchland

• umbrella term for mental states that philosophers can't reconcile with world view offered by contemporary science i.e believing, desiring, hoping etc (intentional states: mental states always directed at objects; useful for explaining day-to-day behaviour i.e buying drinks = desiring drinks or hoping to quench thirst)
• in past people believed things proven to be wrong (i.e possession = schizophrenia) by science without reference to unproven things
• Churchlands: understanding of minds will be replaced by (neuro)science + reason why folk psychology is difficult to explain by scientists + philosophy is bc it doens't exist

1) incomplete account of human mind

• unable to explain mental illnesses i.e schizophrenia
• we should find explanations in neuroscience or genetics

2) no progress in 1000+ years

• folk psychology hasn't changed
• mind sciences professed remarkably i.e understanding of brain in past 50 years
• different scientific perspective from medieval alchemists

3) incompatible with contemporary science

• mental states are intentional states which are "about" objects
• nothing else in physical world shares property of being "about" something i.e molecules making up brain are not "about" anything
• ∴ we should discard bad psychology to keep good science

1) intuitive certainty of existence of mind

• Descartes: even if we are unsure of everything else, we can be sure of existence of own mind bc we have mental states i.e I believe I am being deceived but I am believing so that state exists
• if we take away this, entire edifice of human knowledge collapses

RESPONSE

• eliminative materialists: not claiming that nothing happening in mind in intentional states but explanation of mental phenomena is incorrect
• terms i.e believing + desiring are language of defunct theory (referring to real things but scientific underpinnings are suspect)

2) folk psychology has good predicative + explanatory power

• until birth of modern psychology, it was only real account of mind
• explained many elements of human behaviour
• things it can't explain (i.e mental illness + nature of perception) mighn't be within its purview bc it's not suited for that subject

3) eliminates itself

• very exposition of theory requires cognising argument aiming to change beliefs but argument denies such thing as beliefs (intentional state)

RESPONSE

• eliminative materialists: scientifically complete account of mind will provide us with non-intentional account of understanding
  RESPONSE
• no such account exists + impossible to conceive of such an account bc entire conceptual framework based on intentional content
• folk psychology is precondition of any reasoning taking place
  RESPONSE
  Wittgenstein: truth of conclusion is powerful enough to undermine premises