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

2. The Steps of the Egocentric Predicament  1). We know our own minds implicitly/innately (Sartre, Freud [generally], Hume [didn’t believe in a self])  2). How can we know other mind’s?  John Stuart Mill said we can know others via Analogy.  I smile when I’m happy; when you smile you’re happy. (M:B::X:B) can we infer ‘X’?  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?  3). Why don’t analogies guarantee our conclusion?  Perhaps the first step is incorrect

3. 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.  Descartes believed the Mind and Body were two separate substances (substances can’t interact)  Mind (non-extended, thinking substance)  Body (extended, non-thinking substance)

4. 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]

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

6. 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)  Correlation is not connection  Pain the feeling is the physical brain responding to a change in sodium levels. (p.199)  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 4.21B”)

7. 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?  Could we create something that performs similar functions as our brain?

8. Functionalism cont.  Pg. 201 (possibility of future computers)  Functionalism stresses the notion that we could create a piece of hardware that performs all the specials functions of the brain.  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.

9. Review of the Egocentric Predicament  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.