The Mind-Body Problem

Some Theories of Mind Dualism –Substance Dualism: mind and body are differerent substances. Mind is unextended and not subject to physical laws. Interactionism: mind and body interact Occasionalism/Parallelism: mind and body don’t interact –Property/Event Dualism Epiphenomenalism: physical events cause mental events but mental events don’t cause anything (may not be a substance theory) Property Dualism:(some) mental states are irreducibly non- physical attributes of physical substances

Some Theories of Mind Physicalism: mental states are identical to physical states, in particular, brain states or, minimally, supervene upon physical states. –(“Analytical” or “Logical”) Behaviorism: talk about mental states should be analyzed as talk about behavior and behavioral dispositions(“Analytical” or “Logical”) Behaviorism: –The Identity Theory (Type-Physicalism): mental states are identical to (so nothing more than) brain statesThe Identity Theory (Type-Physicalism): –Functionalism: mental states are to be characterized in terms of their causal relations to sensory inputs, behavioral outputs and other mental states, that is, in terms of their functional role.Functionalism:

Dualism(s) Pro Qualia Irreducibility of psychology The Zombie Argument The Cartesian Essentialist Argument Con Causal closure of the physical Simplicity

Descartes’ Arguments for Dualism Empirical Argument –The complexity and flexibility of human behavior, including linguistic behavior, couldn’t be achieved by mere mechanism so we need to assume some non-physical substance as an explanation for such behavior. Essentialist Argument –It is conceivable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body –Whatever is conceivable is logically possible –Therefore, it is possible one’s mind might exist without one’s body –Therefore one’s mind is a different entity from one’s body

The Zombie Argument A (philosophical) zombie is a being which is a perfect duplicate of a normal human being—including brain and neural activity—but which is not conscious. The Zombie Argument for property dualism –Zombies are conceivable –Whatever is conceivable is logically possible –(Some) mental states/properties/events are not identical to any brain states/properties/events Note: this argument doesn’t purport to establish substance dualism or, as Descartes wished to show, that minds/persons could exist in a disembodied state.

Problem with Cartesian Dualism “We do not need that hypothesis”: complex behavior can be explained without recourse to irreducibly non-physical states. –Contra Descartes, purely physical mechanisms can exhibit the kind of complex, flexible behavior, including learning (or “learning”) characteristic of humans. All physical events have sufficient causes that are themselves physical events –Physicalism is an aggressor hypothesis: we explain more and more without recourse to non-physical events/states –Agency explanations are eliminated in favor of mechanistic explanations—including explanations for agency itself. –Claims to the effect that non-physical events cause physical events introduces an even bigger mystery: what is the mechanism?

Epiphenomenalism Motivation for Epiphenomenalism –All physical events have sufficient causes that are themselves physical events –But some mental events—qualitative states, the what-it-is-like experience—seem to be irreducibly nonphysical: it seems implausible to identify them with brain events. Problem: intuitively some mental states cause behavior –E. g. pain causes people to wince –Moreover, part of what we mean by “pain” seems to involve an association* of with characteristic behavior *We’ll leave “association” intentionally vague

(Philosophical) Behaviorism Motivation –We want to hold that there are no irreducibly non-physical causes of physical events –But we also need to accommodate the fact that what we mean by terms designating mental states involves an association with characteristic behavior. Problems –Intuitively, there’s more to some mental states: the problem of qualia –Intuitively, there can be less to mental states: it’s conceivable that one may be in a given state without even being disposed to characteristic behavior—or that one may be disposed to uncharacteristic behavior –Dispositions aren’t causes so, while behaviorism associates mental states with behavior, they still don’t cause behavior.

The Identity Theory Motivation –We want to hold that there are no irreducibly non-physical causes of physical events –But we also want to understand them as “inner states” that are causally responsible for behavior Problems –Qualia again: intuitively there is more to consciousness than brain states –Species chauvinism: if we identify a type of mental state, e.g. pain, with a type of brain state that is responsible for pain in humans, e.g. the firing of C-fibers, what do we do about non- humans who don’t have the same kind of brain states but who, we believe, can never the less have the same kind of mental states?

What a theory of mind should do Make sense of consciousness: “The Hard Problem” Avoid commitment to irreducibly non-physical states, events or substances Explain the causal role of mental states as –Effects of physical events –Causes of behavior –Causes of other mental events Allow for multiple realizability in order to avoid species chauvinism –We want to be able to ascribe the same kinds of mental states we have to humans who may be wired differently, other animals and, possibly to beings that don’t have brains at all, e.g. Martians, computers

Functionalism What makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part. Topic Neutrality: mental state concepts don’t specify their intrinsic character, whether physical or non-physical—that’s a matter for empirical investigation. –So Functionalism is in principle compatible with both physicalism and dualism Multiple Realizability: A single mental kind (property, state, event) can be "realized" by many distinct physical kinds. –The same type of mental state could, in principle, be “realized” by different physical (or non-physical) states –Disagreement about how “liberal” we should be in this regard

An Example: Pain We’re interested in analyzing or ordinary concept of pain We understand it in terms of its causal role –As being typically produced by certain stimuli, e.g. bodily injury –As tending to produce certain behavior, e.g. wincing –As producing further mental states, e.g. resolving to avoid those stimuli in the future We recognize that different kinds of physical (of non-physical) mechanisms may play that role –Compare to other functional concepts like “can opener” –We leave empirical questions to empirical investigation

The Big Questions About Functionalism Consciousness: some mental states appear to have intrinsic, introspectable features—and those features seem to be essential –Inverted Qualia (see Block “Inverted Earth”) –Zombies –The Knowledge Argument (see Jackson “What Mary Didn’t Know”) Understanding: controversial whether understanding can be reduced to the ability to mediate input and output by manipulating symbols (see Turing “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” vs. Searle on The Chinese Room Some sly questions: Can the program of analysis be plausibly carried through? Compare to the problem of carrying through the phenomenalist program. And, if so, could we be stuck with species chauvinism again?