Eliminative Materialism

define eliminative materialism

theory which claims that (at least some) mental states as they are currently understood by folk psychology do not exist and our common sense understanding is radically mistaken and neuroscience will eventually explain all the occurrences in our mind with no reference to terminology we currently use to talk about mental states

give an analogy to help explain eliminative materialism

in the 1300’s the Black Death happened and people explained it by saying it was bad air

science later revealed that the black death was caused by a pathogen on fleas

so bad air was actually false and we no longer use it in our terminology to explain the black death

eliminative materialists would argue that folk psychology is like the ‘bad air’ and neuroscience will later cause it to become false and useless when talking about mental states

what are the criticisms to eliminative materialism?

the certainty about the reality of mental states

folk psychology has good predictive and explanatory power

is a self-refuting theory

what is the ‘degenerating research programme’ strength for eliminative materialism? and its counter argument?

successful scientific theories are constantly developing and any theory which doesn’t should be treated with suspicion

Paul Churchland claims folk psychology is a ‘degenerating research programme’ which hasn’t developed overtime and can’t keep up with the developments of the modern world

CA: there are developments in clinical psychology which use folk psychology like cognitive behavioural therapy which focuses on reflecting on the inner mental life and nothing to do with neuroscience

so folk psychology can keep up with the developments of the modern world and is a developing theory

who are the philosophers behind eliminative materialism?

Paul and Patricia Churchland

what is the certainty about the reality of mental states criticism? and its counter argument?

through introspection, i am directly aware of my desires, thoughts, pains, beliefs etc so they must exist

so mental states must not be false if i am directly aware of them

CA: in the past there are many examples of people believing to be directly aware of false things

eg in the past people believed heat was a fluid called caloric but we know now that that is false as it is the kinetic energy of particles

but people would not believe that caloric was false as they could directly experience it ( when touching a hot surface)

what is the folk psychology has good predictive and explanatory power criticism?

folk psychology has a lot of success in helping us predict human behaviour eg we can successfully predict someone will say ouch if they step on a nail

neuroscience does not come anywhere near to giving us such predictive power

so folk psychology must be relevant and not eliminated

what is the self refuting theory criticism? and its counter argument?

if there are no such things as beliefs like eliminative materialism claims, then eliminative materialists can not believe their theory to be true

if they do not believe the theory to be true, then eliminative materialism is a meaningless theory

but if eliminative materialists believe the theory to be true, it is a meaningful but false theory

so eliminative materialism can either be meaningless or false

CA: CHURCHLAND: vital substance

people used to believe in a spirit called ‘vital substance’ which distinguished living things from inanimate objects

in the past, if someone denied vital substance they would be called self-refuting as if vital substance did not exist, they would be dead and their statement meaningless but if they were alive the statement would be meaningful but false

we know now vital substance is false so the criticism that it was self refuting was flawed. it was flawed because it presupposed the truth of vital substance

Churchland argues the self-refuting theory for eliminative materialism has the same flaw in presupposing the truth of folk psychology

so eliminative materialism can still be a meaningful true theory