Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Print publication year: 2005
  • Online publication date: June 2012

2 - Arguing For Eliminativism

Summary

I am sure I am not alone in reporting that the greater exposure I have to experimental work in scientific psychology and neuroscience the less value there seems to be in our commonsense psychological framework of belief, desire, and the other propositional attitudes. Commonsense psychological concepts hardly feature at all in cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience. Theorists in these areas either eschew psychological vocabulary altogether or appeal to shadowy neologisms such as “cognize” or “encode.” It is often difficult to see where the points of contact are between the serious scientific study of the mind and the apparent platitudes that philosophers tend to take as their starting point. And even when one can see where the points of contact are, scientific psychology and commonsense psychology are often in tension with each other. Many areas of scientific psychology place serious pressure on our image of ourselves as rational, consistent agents with stable character traits. Yet this image of ourselves is at the heart of commonsense psychology. Commonsense psychology tells one story about the “springs of action” – about how and why we behave the way we do – while the story (or rather, stories) told by scientific psychology and cognitive neuroscience seem completely different and in many ways incompatible with a commonsense understanding of human behavior.

In the face of all this some philosophers, most prominently of course Paul Churchland, have argued for a wholesale rejection of our commonsense ways of thinking about the mind.

References
Amazeen, E. L., & Turvey, M. T. (1996). “Weight perception and the haptic size-weight illusion are functions of the inertia tensor.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22: 213–32.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Bermúdez, J. L. (2005). “The domain of folk psychology.” In Hear, A. O' (Ed.), Mind and Persons. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bermúdez, J. L. (2005). Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction. London, Routledge
Boghossian, P. (1990). “The status of content.” The Philosophical Review 99: 157–84
Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (2004). “Physics and psychology of the muscle sense.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 13: 25–8.
Churchland, P. M. (1981). “Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes.” Journal of Philosophy 78: 67–90.
Churchland, P. M. (1989). “Folk psychology and the explanation of human behavior.” Philosophical Perspectives 3: 225–41
Churchland, P. M. (1992). “Activation vectors vs. propositional attitudes: How the brain represents reality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 419–524.
Churchland, P. M. (1998). “Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: The Fodor/Lepore challenge answered.” Journal of Philosophy 65: 5–32.
Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1998). On the Contrary: Critical Essays, 1987–1997. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Churchland, P. S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1992). The Computational Brain. Cambridge,MA, MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). “The dimensional-action system: A distinct visual system.” In Prinz, W. and Hommel, B. (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance XIX. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A., & Shoup, R. (1997). “Perceptual dimensional constraints on response selection processes.” Cognitive Psychology 32: 128–81
Darley, J. M., & Batson, D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 100–8
Davies, M. K., Stone, T. (eds.) (1995). Folk Psychology: The Theory of Mind Debate, Oxford, Blackwell
Doris, J. (2002). Lack of Character. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). “Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis.” Cognition 28: 3–71
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. A. (1972). “Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 384–8
Laakso, Aarre , & Cottrell, Garrison W . (1998). How can I know what You think?: Assessing representational similarity in neural systems. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Cognitive Science Conference, Madison, WI. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Lewis, D. (1994). “Reduction of mind.” In Guttenplan, S. (Ed.), Companion to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford, Blackwell.
Matthews, K. E., & Canon, L. K. (1975). Environmental noise level as a determinant of helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 571–7.
Maynard, Smith J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
P. Pettit (1991). “Decision theory as folk psychology.” In Bacharach, M. & Hurley, S. (eds.), Foundations of Decision Theory. Oxford, Blackwell
Sejnowski, T. J., & Rosenberg, C. (1987). “Parallel networks that learn to pronounce English text.” Complex Systems 1:145–68
Skyrms, B . (1996). The Evolution of the Social Contract, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Smolensky, P. (1988). “On the proper treatment of connectionism.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11(1): 1–23.
Turvey, M. T. (1996). Dynamic touch. American Psychologist 51: 1134–51
Ungerleider, L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In Ingle, D. J., Goodale, M. A. & Mansfield, R. J. W. (Eds). Analysis of Visual Behavior. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.