1. True or False: Materialism and physicalism mean the same thing.
Physicalism is the view that only physical things exist.
Physical in this case means ‘things that comes under the laws and investigations of physics’.
Physicalists believe that all changes in the universe are brought about by physical causes alone. No other non- physical causes are necessary.
Physicalists believe that properties identified by physics are the ‘fundamental’ nature of the universe and make up everything in it.
There are four physicalist theories we will be covering – Mind Brain Type Identity, Eliminative Materialism, Behaviourism and Functionalism.

2. True or False:
Materialism and physicalism mean the same thing. – We’ve moved more towards using physicalism as materialism is too vague, energy is not matter for example, but it is physical.
Physicalism is the view that only physical things exist. – Or things that depend entirely on the physical.
Physical in this case means ‘things that comes under the laws and investigations of physics’.
Physicalists believe that all changes in the universe are brought about by physical causes alone. No other non-physical causes are necessary.
Physicalists believe that properties identified by physics are the ‘fundamental’ nature of the universe and make up everything in it. – There are other properties (like the mental) but they depend on these ontologically ‘basic’ physical properties.
There are four physicalist theories we will be covering – Mind Brain Type Identity, Eliminative Materialism, Behaviourism and Functionalism.

3. What do these pairs have in common?
Cogito Ergo Sum / I Think Therefore I Am
Three Sided Shape / Triangle
Bachelor / Unmarried Man

4. Analytically Reducible
In all of these cases the terms could be swapped out in a sentence without loss of meaning.
For all intents and purposes, both terms mean the same thing and refer to the same thing.
This is what we mean by Analytically Reducible.
“I have drawn a three-sided shape” =
“I have drawn a triangle”
Cogito Ergo Sum / I Think Therefore I Am
Three Sided Shape / Triangle
Bachelor / Unmarried Man

5. Analytically Reducible
A logical, or analytic, reduction is a claim that words of one sort mean the same as words of another sort.
For instance, the claim that statements about the mental are analytically reducible to statements about behaviour (according to behaviourism). We might have thought that our words for the mental mean something different than our words for behaviour, but in actual fact they both refer to and mean the same thing.
Essentially this means that we could change the language in a sentence from one to the other and the sentence would still keep it’s meaning.
Cogito Ergo Sum / I Think Therefore I Am
Three Sided Shape / Triangle
Bachelor / Unmarried Man

6. What do these pairs have in common?
Peter Parker / Spiderman
Lightning / Electrical Discharge
Water / H20

7. Ontologically Reducible
In these cases the terms might refer to the same thing – but they are not interchangeable.
I cannot swap the terms without losing some of the meaning.
This is ontological reduction – showing that beings or entities of one kind are the same as entities of another kind.
“I just met Peter Parker”
Is not the same as
“I just met Spiderman”
Peter Parker / Spiderman
Lightning / Electrical Discharge
Water / H20

8. Ontologically Reducible
An ontological reduction is a claim that things of one sort are identical to things of another sort.
For instance, the claim that mental properties are ontologically reducible to physical properties is just saying that mental properties are identical to physical properties. This identity claim is a reduction because we have ‘reduced’ mental properties- which we might have thought were a different kind of thing- to physical properties. They are ultimately the same thing under different descriptions.
Crucially however, it doesn’t mean that the terms used to refer to them have the same meanings and connotations. Language of the mental cannot be simply exchanged for language of the physical.
Peter Parker / Spiderman
Lightning / Electrical Discharge
Water / H20

9. Why is this important?
During the physicalism topic you will be covering theories that use these types of reduction, it is crucial you understand and know the difference between them.
Behaviourists for example take a view of analytic reduction when it comes to mental states. They believe that we can reduce statements about mental states to statements about behaviour and the statement in question will keep it’s meaning.
The first theory we’re going to look at however is “Mind-Brain Identity Theory” (also known as Type- Type Identity Theory) and this takes the view that the mind is ontologically reducible to the brain.

10. What do we mean by this?
The view that the mind is ontologically reducible to the brain effectively means that all talk of the mind and all talk of brain states refer to the same things.
So “Pain” and “C-Fibres firing” actually refer to the same physical brain event.
“If 10 people visit the doctor complaining they’re in the same kind of pain, then according to MBTIT all 10 would be experiencing the same brain event (C-Fibres firing).”

11. A Crucial Point
Its worth reiterating here that we are discussing ontological not analytical reduction. Mind-Brain Identity theorists would not argue that C-Fibres firing and Pain are interchangeable, they do not mean exactly the same thing. They do however, refer to the same thing.
This allows all the scientific connotations of “C-Fibres” firing to be kept, whilst all the emotional and sensory connotations of “Pain” are also kept. Each has it’s place in our language, even whilst they refer to the same brain event.
The identity theorist is not claiming an identity of meaning between words, but an ontological (type) identity between two things.

12. So To Summarise…
MBTIT claims that thinking a thought or feeling an itch is exactly the same thing as certain neurons firing and having a belief is exactly the same thing as certain neural connections existing. Any particular type of mental state is a particular type of brain state. (Hence type-type)
But we cannot replace talk of particular mental states with talk of particular brain states as the language itself has different meanings, even if it refers to the same thing.
Note: Clearly at present we do not know enough about the intricate workings of the brain to be able to say what all mental states are in neurological terms, but the identity theory is committed to the idea that research can (and eventually will) identify what each thought, feeling or desire is in the brain. =

13. Even Shorter Summary: Key Thinkers: J.J.C. Smart
Mind and Brain are identical (they share all the same attributes – Leibniz’s Law).
Accordingly any talk of mental states is actually just referring to particular events in the brain.
Mental states are therefore ontologically reducible to brain states.
However the language of mental states has different meanings and purposes than the language of brain states - we can’t simply replace one with the other. They are not analytically reducible.

14. Tasks
Summarise Mind-Brain Type Identity theory on your whiteboards in four bullet points or less – ask me to come check it when you’ve done so you can copy it into your notes.
Make sure you have the difference between analytically reducible and ontologically reducible somewhere in your notes (use the glossary in the textbooks).
Draw up a table on your whiteboard to show any initial strengths and weaknesses you can think of for Mind-Brain Identity Theory. (Start by considering the other theories we’ve looked at – what issues do they present? What problems can this theory solve?)

15. Strengths / Advantages Weaknesses / Disadvantages

16. Arguments Supporting MBTIT
Use pages to answer the questions below and identify some of the key arguments for MBTIT:
What can physicalism offer that dualism struggles with? Give specific examples (Paragraphs 1 + 2)
Why does current scientific knowledge support identity theory? (Paragraph 3)
What are nomological danglers? Why are they an issue for dualism? Why does Ockham’s Razor apply here? (Paragraph 4 + Quote)
What issues of dualism does identity theory solve? (Paragraphs 5)
Why does identity theory not necessarily need philosophical arguments to prove it correct? (Paragraph 7)

17. Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down
Based on the simple summary / arguments we’ve covered today – do you think Mind-Brain Identity theory is an effective explanation of the mind?