The Egocentric Predicament pg 194 term coined by

The Egocentric Predicament (pg 194); term coined by Ralph Perry Egocentric: the Individual self is at the center of all our experience. û Predicament: It is an intolerable idea that we cannot get beyond our own self to know the existence of others. û Also called: “The Problem of Other Minds” û “How can I ever know of the existence of any mind other than my own? ” (pg 194) û

The Steps of the Egocentric Predicament û 1). We know our own minds implicitly/innately (Sartre, Freud [generally], Hume [didn’t believe in a self]) û 2). How can we know other mind’s? John Stuart Mill said we can know others via Analogy. û I smile when I’m happy; when you smile you’re happy. (M: B: : X: B) can we infer ‘X’? û What about Disanalogies? Is it possible to imagine a being who has all the same body-reactions in similar circumstances but doesn’t have a mind? û û 3). Why don’t analogies guarantee our conclusion? û Perhaps the first step is incorrect

The Mind-Body Problem In order to guarantee that we do indeed know our minds directly, one needs to prove HOW our mind interacts with our body. û Descartes believed the Mind and Body were two separate substances (substances can’t interact) û Mind (non-extended, thinking substance) û Body (extended, non-thinking substance) û

The Proposed 5 Mind-Body Solutions (p. 197) 1). Mind and Body interact (not sure how they interact) [Descartes] 2). Mind and Body don’t interact: the two events occur simultaneously into a pre-established harmony [Leibniz] 3). There are no Mental events [Materialist Solution]. There are only brain processes described from the unusual perspective of the person’s brain. [related to Behaviorism] 4). There are no physical events [Idealist Solution]. Brain processes are only ideas of the mind 5). Mental events and physical events are the same thing [Spinoza’s solution]

Behaviorism: Mental events don’t exist, just behaviors Thoughts may exist, but they’re not ‘Ghosts in the Machine’. û When a person describes a mental disposition, they’re merely making a prediction about future behavior. û Mental events are not “in the mind” they’re simply patterns of behavior from a tangible body. û Is this true for all ‘Mental events’? û

Identity Theory: Mental Events and Physical Events are the SAME! Now that we know that some mental events (ambition) are related to brain events (activity in a specific location of the brain). The question remains: How are these connected? (Mind-Body problem) û Correlation is not connection û Pain the feeling is the physical brain responding to a change in sodium levels. (p. 199) û Critics point out language is not available for Identity Theory; others claim with more knowledge of the brain, we will develop a new language that reflects our new understanding (“F-Stimulation in my cerebral cortex, process 4. 21 B”) û

Functionalism: Mental events are correlated in the brain and could be re-produced in nonbrain material. Artificial Intelligence greatly changed the debate: Behaviorism can’t account for specific stimuli (i. e. , Pain). Identity Theory claims Mind-Body are the same, but does not explain why the brain is such a special organ. Why must they be Brain processes? û Could we create something that performs similar functions as our brain? û

Functionalism cont. Pg. 201 (possibility of future computers) û Functionalism stresses the notion that we could create a piece of hardware that performs all the specials functions of the brain. û û Some critics still maintain that all this discussion of “The brain” are steps in the wrong direction: They urge studying the WHOLE person. A position sometimes called Holism.

Review of the Egocentric Predicament û û û 1). Explain any three of the Mind-Body Solutions discussed on page 197. 2). Which Mind-Body solution seems the least likely? Explain why this solution seems to be the weakest. 3). Which Mind-Body solution seems the most accurate? Explain what you find persuasive about the argument. 4). Define the Egocentric Predicament 5). Write one question related to the Self Unit you wish to ask a specific person/philosopher.