“The Nature of Mind”

David M. Armstrong

Armstrong’s task in this article is to sketch a theory of the mind that is consistent with a view he calls “materialism.”

MaterialismMaterialism, as Armstrong understands it, is just the view that we can give a complete account of

human beings in purely physico-chemical terms.

We don’t need to make reference to any sort of soul or spirit or immaterial mental properties to make

sense of humans.

Materialism

❖ Armstrong contends that our best science is leading us in this direction; thus, it is worth attempting to construct a theory of the mind that is consistent with materialism.

❖ The best clue we have to the nature of mind is through modern science.

❖ Why? Because “it is only as a result of scientific investigation that we ever seem to reach an intellectual consensus about controversial matters”.

❖ Modern science says that “we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms”.

❖ Called materialism, physicalism or identity theory; the identity theory claims that sensations and other mental states are brain processes

❖ However, while we can know about our mental states this does not mean that we know about our brain states.

The theory that Armstrong presents is actually a synthesis of two different views…

❖ Dualism is just the Cartesian view that the inner is utterly different than the outer and that there are mental occurrences in just the same sense as there are physical occurrences.

❖ Behaviorism, on the other hand, is the view that all talk of mental occurrences can be reduced to talk about outward behavior.

Dualism Behaviorism

❖ Armstrong tries to bring these two views together.

Next step for Armstrong is to Consider behaviorism and determine the problems.

Behaviorism…Fatal Objections

❖ Considered a Materialistic view. If mental processes are connected to their outward expressions, then humans are simply physico-chemical mechanisms.

❖ The mind is not an “inner arena” of spiritual substance as Descartes claimed, but rather an “outward act”.

❖ A problem with Behaviorism is that there can be mental processes going on even if no behavior is shown. (People may think, but not say or do.)

Solution…Dispositional Behaviorism

❖ Armstrong defines the notion of “a disposition to behave” as a tendency of a person to behave in a certain way under certain circumstances.

❖ Provides example: Glass does not shatter, but it is still brittle.

Glass does not shatter, but it is still brittle.

❖ “Brittleness is a disposition, a disposition possessed by materials like glass. Brittle materials like which, when subjected to relatively small forces, break or shatter easily. But breaking and shattering easily is not brittleness, rather it is the manifestation of brittleness.” -Gilbert Ryle

❖ We are still identifying states with outward acts: there is no ‘mysterious internal arena’ unidentified with behavior.

❖ Gilbert Ryle: Although a person does not show behavior, he or she still had a disposition to behave.

❖ “He thinks although he does not speak or act because at that time he was disposed to speak or act in a certain way”.

❖ Relies on situational factors and temporary dispositions.

Still Problems…❖ Ryle’s account of

behaviorism denies that there is something going on in a person to constitute thought.

❖ Therefore, it (Dispositional Behaviorism) is an unsatisfactory account of the nature of the mind.

However, not all parts are wrong:

❖ “Behaviorists are wrong in identifying...mental occurrences with behavior, but perhaps they are right in thinking that our notion of a mind... is logically tied to behavior”.

❖ Mind not behavior, but the inner cause of behavior.

Conclusion…so far

❖ Behaviorism seems to completely overlook the fact that there seems to be a lot going on inside us even when we aren’t displaying any outward behavior.

❖ Behaviorists attempt to meet this objection by talking about dispositions to behave in certain ways, but Armstrong thinks that even talk of dispositions isn’t robust enough to do justice to what goes on inside our heads.

❖ However, he thinks that the behaviorists are right to say that the mind is somehow tied to behavior.

❖ Indeed, Armstrong suggests that perhaps the mind is just whatever it is that causes outward behavior.

Physicalist View of Mind

❖ This line of thought of mental states being logically tied to behavior is compatible with a physicalist view of mind:

❖ Mental states are nothing but the cause of behavior and, therefore, we can identify them with physical states of the central nervous system.

Mental States as Logically Tied to Behavior

❖ A mental state = a state of a person apt for producing certain ranges of behavior.

❖ Two lines of thought:

❖ The mind brings about our behavior, it is not behavior itself.

❖ The Behaviorist’s dispositions are states that underlie and bring about behavior.

❖ However, this view shares a weakness with Behaviorism.

Problems with this account of the mind...

❖ Behaviorism may be a satisfactory account of the mind from an other-person point of view, but not as a first-person account.

❖ If we are only considering other people, Behaviorism works as we are able to observe others’ behaviors. Physicalist’s view: the mind is the central nervous system of the body observed.

❖ In our own case, we are aware of more than just our behavior.

❖ Consciousness: simply something going on within us apt for causing certain sorts of behavior?

❖ No, therefore account of the mind fails to do justice to the first-person case.

Absent-minded driving case❖ Armstrong tries to “provide an account of the missing elements of

the materialist’s theory.” He says that “the missing elements of the materialist’s theory are just like the experiences we neglect when not paying attention to walking or driving”.

❖ Driving without being aware of what one is doing. ➟ Something mental is lacking.

❖ • “It is conceded that an account of mental processes as states of the person apt for the production of certain sorts of behavior may very possibly be adequate to deal with such cases as that of automatic driving....But...it cannot deal with the consciousness that we normally enjoy”.

Perceptions

❖ Perceptions are inner states defined by the behavior they enable the perceiver to show, if impelled.

❖ To perceive is like acquiring a key to a door:

❖ You do not need to use the key, but if you want to open the door, then the key may be necessary.

How is perception related to consciousness of experience?

❖ Consciousness is perception or awareness of the state of our own mind.

❖ The absent-minded driver perceives the road, but is not conscious of his experience (he is not conscious of his awareness of the road).

❖ He is not conscious of what is going on in his mind.

In Conclusion…

❖ Armstrong argues that consciousness of our own mental state is perception of our own mental state.

❖ It is, therefore, an inner state giving a capacity for selective behavior towards our own mental state.

❖ Consciousness of our own mental state is the scanning of one part of our central nervous system by another.

❖ —> Physicalist theory of mind is possible!

Three clues to understanding your brain

Vilayanur RamachandranVilayanur Ramachandran tells us what brain damage can reveal about the connection between celebral tissue and the mind, using three startling delusions as examples.

http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind?language=en