Dominant Points Of The Eliminative Materialism - Essay Example

Dominant Points Of The Eliminative Materialism The present paper looks for elaborating the eliminative materialism perspective of mind by making its comparative analysis with Cartesian dualism articulated by Rene Descartes and reductive materialism theory of mind attributed to the psychologist E.G. Boring. An important reason behind comparing these three perspectives includes the claim made by eliminative theory to be the exclusive perspective that could define the nature of mind. Consequently, one of the most dominant points to be focused on includes explaining the nature and significance of these theories while elucidating the functions of perception during the mind’s entering into interaction with the physical, natural and social phenomena at large. One of the most imperative claims made by eliminative materialism is this that the humans are unable to comprehend with the realities existing all around them just by depending upon the common sense humans have universally been gifted with. In simple terms, the existence of the objects could not be viewed as they appear before the eyes (Ramsey, 2013). Consequently, what humans perceive and subsequently conclude on the foundation of their apparent observation and visualizing could be contrary to the real characteristics attributed to the same thing, object or phenomenon in general. Hence, developing an idea, and reaching out the conclusion on the basis of visible image(s) of the objects could not be supported by the eliminative materialism to be the true picture of divergent scenarios altogether. On the contrary, reductive materialism submits to state that the psychological states of affairs associated with the mind could be estimated by deducing the same from mental to physical (Murraffa, 2011). Theory of mind, as per elucidated in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), also supports the states of mind, indirectly ratifying the validity of reductive materialism (Apperly et al., 2006). Somehow, its being the product of the cognitive development theory, eliminative perspective declares it to be the bad theory, which actually serves as the reflection of the desires one contains on the one side, and the influence of the prevailing norms, values and traditions regulated by the folklores on the other (Theory of Mind, 150). In addition to this, eliminative materialism criticizes and refutes the claim made by reductive materialism that the situation of mind could be explained in the same lines as it is conducted while assessing and evaluating the material things. Rather, there only exist, according to eliminative perspective, the physical states, which reflect their existence in one way or the other in various objects. On the other hand, mental states do not have any existence, which could reduce the things from mental to physical in any manner. Citing the example of the negation with regards to the existence of devil-loving demonic witches, has strictly been observed by the modern scientific evidence, eliminative materialism claims that the non-existence of the state of mind will also be proved by modern science with the passage of time (Mind as Myth, 145-46). Ramsey (2013) also refers to the theory-theory, where the premise is developed on the basis of a theory that already exists. In addition to this, the author also takes folklore notion as a psychology theory that signifies the need of imitating folkways in order to apply the same in one’s behavior on the basis of one’s belief and pain (Ramsey 2013). The same is applied by entering into deduction and induction methods in order to examine the validity of the behavior. For instance, reason behind pain appearing in some specific part of body is identified by exploring the situation or causes that could inflict the same; and it is applied in case the pain hurts some other part of body or other person by generalizing it to others with the aim of drawing conclusions out of it. While discussing the arguments made by reductive materialism in respect of the existence of the state of mind, eliminative materialism maintains that such a claim is just an outcome of the bad mental theory i.e. folk psychology. Since the popular misconception regarding the hallucination about the witches witnessed its establishment in such a way that various kinds of illnesses were started being opined to be the outcome of the influence and affects of the witch visits to the person(s) suffering from illness. Hence, it is folk psychology, according to the eliminative materialism, which distracts the humans from the right direction of thoughtfulness by narrating the tales about the objects that do not contain any existence in real life (Theory of Mind, 147). Thus, Rorty’s disappearance perspective opines that sensations do not actually exist and that they are nothing but brain processes (Ramsey, 2013). On the contrary, reductive materialism insists on explaining the human behavior with by seeking support from the conventional tales and fables being transferred to the members of society from one generation to the other. It is not confined to the folkways and conventional narrations only; rather, the same could be proved through the empirical evidence by conducting researches and experiments on the mental situation and cognitive growth of the individuals (Murraffa, 2011). Nevertheless, since eliminative perspective views that human behavior could also be explained without embarking upon the tradition of narrating the folktales and fables, there is no need of alluding to the folklores that appear to be deviating the state of mind to a great extent (Theory of Mind, 151). By going through both the above-mentioned perspectives, it becomes evident that both the theories define mindreading by adopting divergent methods by focusing upon social cognition analysis. Reductive materialism lays stress upon folkways as the most authentic and powerful method for comprehending with various aspect of society as well as the phenomena existing within it. Various mindreading perspectives, according to Bermúdez (2005), appear to be re-evaluated partly due to the very fact that there is an immediate need for exploring the traditional nexus between intelligent behavior and propositional attitudes. Intelligent behavior could rightly be stated to be the outcome of one’s thoughtfulness by which man judges how to act, react and behave in some particular occasion. On the other hand, propositional attitude refers to the state of mind that reflects man’s association with a proposition or theory. In other words, the former mirrors eliminative materialism, while the latter stands for reductive materialism that encourages developing thoughts in the light of the propositions established by the other members of society as the form of learned behavior. The similar notion has also been articulated by early seventeenth-century distinguished French philosopher Rene Descartes while presenting his ontological argument by explaining his theory of mind and perception. His aptly quoted notion cogito ergo sum i.e. “I reflect, therefore I am” elucidates that the material things possessing the physical characteristics and reflecting in the vision maintain existence (Ariew, 2011). Somehow, Descartes’ perspective does not negate the existence of state of mind altogether. It is partly due to the very reality that Descartes has developed is strong and unwavering belief in the existence of an entity, which could not maintain any association with materialism actually. Since Descartes maintains an unconditional belief in the notion that both mind and body serve as two different entities; where the former issues command to the latter in order to protect it from external harms. He further discusses the soul, which is a superior entity, though it has to remain confined in the body from birth to death just for getting involved into various acts that are dependent of the physical existence and strength as well as for the demonstration of the existence of soul. Descartes consequently associates the conception and functions of the soul to be as dependent of some regulatory authority that maintains unconditional command over the movement observed by various entities and independent bodies at large. To conclude, it becomes evident that though eliminative materialism appears to be determined to refute the claim made by reductive materialism with regards to the reducing of mind to body by citing scientific developments; however, reductive materialism also looks for the generalization of scientific theories in support of the arguments it has made while depicting the reduction perspective (Ramsey 2013). It is therefore, reductive materialism alludes to the propositional attitude while drawing the conclusions regarding various social, natural and physical phenomena. However, eliminative materialism is different from Descartes’ perspective in the way that the former negates the existence of mental state altogether, while the latter focuses on the Cartesian dualism, by declaring mind and body to be two entirely different entities, and are inter-dependent of each other, instead of completely independent or dependent on one another. Nevertheless, reductive materialism seeks to reduce mental state to the physical one, which is not acceptable for eliminative materialism. However, an important aspect reductive materialism points out towards includes the investigation into the social phenomena by observing the principles of induction and deduction, which is not possible without reducing mind to body and hence employing reducing on the basis mentioned by folk psychology. Consequently, reductive materialism also lays stress upon scientific and empirical evidences by strictly applying deduction and induction by applying various phenomena from specific to general and vice versa. References Apperly, I.A., Samson, D., Carroll, N., Hussain, S. and Humphreys, G. (2006). “Intact first- and second-order false belief reasoning in a patient with severly impaired grammar.” Social Neuroscience 1(3-4): 334-348. Ariew, Roger. (2011) Modern Philosophy Second Edition 2011 ISBN: 9780872209787 Bermúdez, J. L. (2006a). “Commonsense psychology and the interface problem: Reply to Botterill.” SWIF Philosophy of Mind Review 5(3): 54–57. Marraffa, Massimo (2011) Theory of Mind Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/theomind/ Accessed 11-08-2013 Ramsey, William (2013) Eliminative Materialism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#FolPsyTheThe Accessed 11-08-2013 Theory of Mind There Ain't No Such Things as Ghosts Mind as Myth. Section 2.4 145-154 Read More