“Big” essays are due next Wednesday. (Don’t try to write them next Tuesday!)

“Big” essays are due next Wednesday. (Don’t try to write them next Tuesday!)

Overview of the Course: Five Topics (“Units”) Arguments / Methods Phil of Religion Epistemology / Phil of Science Free Will Phil of Mind

Philosophy of Mind What’s the difference between philosophy of mind and psychology? • Only 150 years ago, there was no difference. Psychology didn’t exist yet, so all questions about the mind were viewed as philosophical questions.

Psychology vs. Philosophy of Mind Psychology is a scientific discipline; it asks questions that can be answered by the scientific method. As a result, psychology is all about prediction (like the rest of science).*

Psychology vs. Philosophy of Mind Psychology is a scientific discipline; it asks questions that can be answered by the scientific method. As a result, psychology is all about prediction (like the rest of science).* • * Explanation is also important, but only because it helps with prediction.

Psychology vs. Philosophy of Mind Philosophy is wider in scope. Questions of prediction fall within its scope, but it isn’t limited to questions of prediction.

Psychology vs. Philosophy of Mind Since all science is ultimately about prediction, scientific fields are defined by the types ofobservation they try to predict (and explain).

Psychology vs. Philosophy of Mind Since all science is ultimately about prediction, scientific fields are defined by the types ofobservation they try to predict (and explain). What observations define psychology, as a scientific field?

Philosophy of Mind Psychology is not “the science of the mind” (strictly speaking).

Philosophy of Mind Psychology is not “the science of the mind” (strictly speaking). You can’t observe minds.

Philosophy of Mind Psychology is not “the science of the mind” (strictly speaking). You can’t observe minds. Psychology is the prediction and explanation of behavior.

Philosophy of Mind Concepts of the mind explain observations of behavior, but scientific fields aren’t defined by the explanations they provide. • Newton and Einstein gave different explanations for the same observations, but they were both physicists. • Physics is defined by what it tries to explain, not by the explanations it actually offers.

Philosophy of Mind Concepts of the mind explain observations of behavior, but scientific fields aren’t defined by the explanations they provide. • For the same reason, psychology is not the science of the mind: • the mind is the explanation, • not the thing being explained.

Philosophy of Mind Psychology focuses specifically on how the mind explains behavior. • Philosophy of mind doesn’t have this focus. • It’s open to any (theoretical) question about the mind.

Philosophy of Mind The central issue in philosophy of mind is the mind/body problem. • If the mind is just the body, • then when we die, that’s it. You have no soul. There is no life after death.

Philosophy of Mind The central issue in philosophy of mind is the mind/body problem. • If the mind is just the body, • then when we die, that’s it. You have no soul. There is no life after death. • But if the mind is not just the body, • how is it possible to get drunk?

Philosophy of Mind And even if the mind is just the body, some difficult questions arise...

Exercise: • Define the emotion of homesickness in terms of the body. • Suppose someone claims to be homesick. • If the mind is just the body, this claim implies facts about this person’s body. • What would we have to observe about a person’s body in order to observe her homesickness?

The Mind/Brain Identity Theory Water = H2O Mind = Brain

Leibniz’s Law: • If two things are identical, they must share all their properties. • (There aren’t really two things, after all. There’s just one thing, with one set of properties.) If water is identical to H2O, it’s impossible for water to have a property that H2O doesn’t have.

Descartes’ First Argument for Dualism: • 1) It’s possible to doubt the existence of your body. • People often have false experiences and sensations. • It’s at least possible that your beliefs about your body are all based on false experiences. • So it’s possible to doubt that your body actually exists.

Descartes’ First Argument for Dualism: • 2) It’s not possible to doubt the existence of your mind. • In order to doubt anything, you must have a mind to do the doubting. Even if all your experiences are false, you have to have a mind to have false experiences. • (“I think, therefore I am.”)

Descartes’ First Argument for Dualism: It’s possible to doubt the existence of your body. It’s not possible to doubt the existence of your mind. Your body has a property your mind doesn’t have. If your body has a property your mind doesn’t have, your body can’t be identical to your mind. • Your body can’t be identical to your mind.

Descartes’ First Argument for Dualism: It’s possible to doubt the existence of your body. It’s not possible to doubt the existence of your mind. Your body has a property your mind doesn’t have. If your body has a property your mind doesn’t have, your body can’t be identical to your mind. • Your body can’t be identical to your mind. What do you think of this argument?

Descartes claims that the mind has the property of indubitable existence, while the body does not. Is indubitable existence a property of the mind?

Doubt is a form of thinking, a cognitive activity. (That’s why it requires a mind, as Premise 2 says.) As a result, what can or cannot be doubted depends upon the cognitive abilities of the agent doing the doubting.

Even if all cognitive agents are incapable of doubting something about the world, that’s a property of the agents, not of the things their doubts are about.

Even if all cognitive agents are incapable of doubting something about the world, that’s a property of the agents, not of the things their doubts are about. • If I doubt it will rain tomorrow, that’s not a property of the weather. It’s a property of my thoughts about the weather.

Even if all cognitive agents are incapable of doubting something about the world, that’s a property of the agents, not of the things their doubts are about. • If I doubt it will rain tomorrow, that’s not a property of the weather. It’s a property of my thoughts about the weather. • If I’m unable to doubt that I have a mind, that’s a property of my thoughts about my mind. It’s not a property of my mind.

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism:

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism: Bodies have extension. (They take up space, and have locations in space.)

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism: Bodies have extension. (They take up space, and have locations in space.) Minds don’t have extension.

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism: Bodies have extension. (They take up space, and have locations in space.) Minds don’t have extension. Bodies have a property that minds don’t have. If bodies have a property that minds don’t have, bodies can’t be identical to minds. • Bodies can’t be identical to minds.

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism: Bodies have extension. (They take up space, and have locations in space.) Minds don’t have extension. Bodies have a property that minds don’t have. If bodies have a property that minds don’t have, bodies can’t be identical to minds. • Bodies can’t be identical to minds. Where’s the flaw in this argument?

Descartes’ Second Argument for Dualism: Bodies have extension. (They take up space, and have locations in space.) Minds don’t have extension. Bodies have a property that minds don’t have. If bodies have a property that minds don’t have, bodies can’t be identical to minds. • Bodies can’t be identical to minds. It’s not clear that this premise is false, but there is definitely a problem. What is it?

Descartes’ view is called substance dualism, because he considers minds and bodies to be different kinds of substances. Physical substance is extended in space. Mental substance has no spatial properties.

Descartes’ view is called substance dualism, because he considers minds and bodies to be different kinds of substances. Physical substance is extended in space. Mental substance has no spatial properties. There’s one GLARING objection to this view. What is it?

Logical Behaviorism

Logical Behaviorism Since it isn’t possible to observe minds, some have proposed simply dropping the whole idea of the mind. That’s behaviorism.

Logical Behaviorism Since it isn’t possible to observe minds, some have proposed simply dropping the whole idea of the mind. That’s behaviorism. Logical behaviorism proposes that we translate all mental concepts into physical concepts about behavior.

Logical Behaviorism Mentalistic Concepts -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc.

Logical Behaviorism Mentalistic Concepts -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc. Behavior

Logical Behaviorism Mentalistic Concepts -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc. Behavior Behavior

Logical Behaviorism Mentalistic Concepts -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc. Behavior Behavior Behavior

Logical Behaviorism Mentalistic Concepts -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc. Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior

It’s called Logical Behaviorism because it’s a claim about what mentalistic concepts mean. -Thoughts -Beliefs -Intentions -Desires -Emotions -Doubts -Wishes -Hopes -Etc. Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior

Logical Behaviorism • Negative Thesis: • The common sense view of the mind is based on a myth: the myth of the ghost in the machine. • Positive Thesis: • The mind is just the activity of the machine.

“Big” essays are due next Wednesday. (Don’t try to write them next Tuesday!)