1. Eliminativism Philosophy of Mind

2. Today’s lecture plan: The ‘theory-theory’ of common sense psychology A Choice: Vindication or elimination (Isomorphic causal roles.) Arguments for Eliminative Materialism Arguments against Eliminative Materialism

3. The Churchlands

4. Paul Churchland A claim about our common sense conception of psychological states. The ‘theory-theory’. A predictive device. Postulates mental states and a network of laws. Like theoretical terms in science.

5. Structure of what FP says produces behaviour. compare with: Structure of what in brain produces behaviour. Is there an isomorphism? The more similarity the more vindicationist; the more dissimilarity the more eliminativist. Degrees of fit.

6. Arguments for eliminativism Folk psychology is an empirical theory…. Has its successes, so Fodor says… But Churchland says… that it also has failings… mental illness, sleep, imagination, intelligence. Reply? That shows FP is incomplete. And, it might be a good theory of what it does cover.

7. Stephen Stich

8. Stich Generalisations of FP. Serious will explain why they hold. Structure of FP and structure of ‘cognitive science’. Folk psychology, is like folk biology, folk physics, folk astrology… Why think we should be so good at knowing about our own minds?

9. So it is possible that FP is false. Example: folk conception of earthquakes…actually rolling and tumbling are different… Similarly FP assumes one unitary belief state, which underlies utterances and also that figures in practical reasoning.

10. Argument: FP hasn’t changed for 1000s of years. Reply? This doesn’t show much. Longevity of theory because it is true? Argument: FP doesn’t cohere with other fields, such as brain science, biology etc. Reply?: what about history, economics, anthropology?

11. Arguments Against Eliminativism (1) Predictive success makes it likely that FP is true, that the entities and laws it postulates exist. And… there is isomorphism of folk functional roles with what brain science has discovered.

12. (2) FP not a theory Not clear that the existence claims of FP are due, or entirely due, to predicting behaviour of other bodies. we are not like scientists… instead we empathetically put ourselves in other’s shoes. No use of some sophisticated theory. Autism/young children research.

13. Lynne Baker

14. (3) Self-refutation? Elim. Is it self defeating? Baker It says: There are no assertions? No beliefs? Nothing is rationally acceptable? Reply by Churchland Analogy with ‘life’ and ‘vital spirit’?

15. Eliminativists say that it is question begging to use the old to terms to express an objection to the theory. Problem with dispensing with rational norms. Perhaps one could think that another person has no beliefs, and has no reason to believe anything. Not of oneself. This argument doesn’t seem question-begging.