 Hello good afternoon. Let's start. Good afternoon class. Okay, so today is more on functionalism and Ned blocks Ned blocks troubles with functionalism and on Thursday Thursday, we'll look at Martina neither room alans pseudo normal vision Again, it's a very short article. It's in the block. It's just a few pages long Okay, just a remark about the essay this due when is it October the third or so in the essay It says the first paragraph of your essay must state the main thesis for which you wish to argue in the essay and This is something I haven't done before in the in class But it occurred to me it might be kind of fun or interesting to hear something about I Guess some of you anyway will have been thinking a little bit about the essay already although there is plenty of time But it might be interesting to hear what kind of thesis people are thinking of arguing for If you don't mind sharing what thesis you're wishing I mean it if you've got some diabolically clever Ingenious thesis that you wish to argue for then that's fine. Yeah, and if you want to keep that secret that's fine But if you don't mind sharing with other people what you're not the main thesis is I thought we might leave some time at the end and I might actually call on people randomly and just see What kind of thesis people are thinking of arguing for? It might be interesting or it would be interesting for me and it might be interesting for other people, too Does anyone have it or does anyone wish to say anything at this point? Does anyone identified their thesis and doesn't mind sharing it for the essay and even provisionally you're not committing yourself? Well, that was overwhelming No one at all Okay, well you have what you have about 60 minutes Okay Just think of what kind of thesis you might be arguing for in your essay as I say It might it need not be I said forget what I was going to say It need not be the thesis you eventually wind up arguing for you're not committing yourself It would just be interesting to hear what your direction of thought is and for example behaviorism is true Might be one thesis. You see what I mean. It doesn't have to be It can be an essay without having anything very startling in the way of the thesis Yep Okay Okay, so that's your task for the next 60 minutes okay, so I'll start out by going back over about what the motivation for functionalism is and then look at blocks Objection block head to functionalism I Want to begin with there's a There's something I didn't really explain very well last time in this variable realizability argument for functionalism and both during the Class and talking to people afterwards a few people said to me something along the lines of well, this is all very wishy-washy isn't it or They put it more courteously than that, but it's something along the lines of there's a lot of what ifs here What if they were different? What if there were aliens? What if you could have octopuses that fell pen? and Isn't that all just on hypotheses you're making That's not really the point, but this is a little bit subtle so see if you can come with me here This statement Pain could be realized by different physical structures That's a statement about what's possible That's a statement about what could happen, right? I Say that whole statement is definitely true You have the right to disagree with it You'll not be penalized if you disagree with me on this, but I think that's definitely true And I think it's definitely true because when I think about say the Star Wars movies Or any kind of alien movie it seems entirely possible That you could have creatures with different physical structures to ours that were nonetheless clearly capable of feeling pen that they just That seems so obvious. I'm not sure how to explain it further if you see what I mean I'm not saying there are aliens. I'm just saying the idea makes perfect sense And I think the octopus is a good candidate for a creature that doesn't have our kind of brain structure But nonetheless, it's capable of feeling things like pain or hunger so It may sound as if I'm just saying a whole bunch of whoref's but what I really am getting at here is that this is Definitely true. It really is possible for a pain to be realized by creatures with different physical structures whether or not there are any It's as if I was trying to think of an example It's as if someone said look wires Conductors have just got to be made of copper whenever you see a wiring diagram Though the line always means copper and you say but there are plenty you could have wires That weren't made of copper and they say well, have you ever seen any of those so-called wires? This is all a bit hand-wavy. What if he is just perfectly possible You could make even if nobody has ever made a wire of anything other than copper You could perfectly well make wires of aluminum or anything else if someone gave a definition of a nuclear family That said it's a structure of 30 or less individuals with a single mother and father and a bunch of children Then the perfectly natural reaction to that is to say but you could having you clear family with 31 children Of course, that's possible. I mean Your heart goes out to them, but of course Of course, that's perfectly possible. You see what I mean anyone who defines it Family in such a way that there couldn't be more than 30 people in it It's just making a mistake and it's not that I'm doing this is some kind of very very nonsense about Families with 30 who's ever seen such a thing family with 31 people in them. It's not that's not what the thing is What makes it a family doesn't restrict it to having any particular number of members So it being pain doesn't restrict it to being any one physical structure. That's really the key thing Okay, and these points about octopuses or aliens or plasticity of the brain and an individual So they're of a single individual gets a bit of brain damaged other Brain structures will be recruited to fill the function that That the original but the damage brain structure used to do these points Just illustrate something that's perfectly definite and perfectly possible That's my claim You have the right to disagree. I'm happy for anyone to disagree but It's not a what if Yeah, you see what I mean. It's pointing out something that seems so obviously correct that this is possible Anything questions comments plain as day Okay, so that's the variable realizability argument Against physicalism because if pain just was the same thing as having C fiber firing then you couldn't have These possibilities Yeah, I think it was really just the same thing as C fiber firing so another way to get at the same point is These remarks like pain is C fiber firing or the feeling of sorrow is an electrochemical discharge These really seem kind of mind-bending to people and they seem kind of mind-bending in the kind of the same way as if I Said look here. I have a humble piece of chalk. Yep this piece of chalk it has been discovered over in Advanced mathematics they have discovered that the number eight Actually is this piece of chalk. Look at it People have been wondering for centuries about the nature of numbers and it turns out Here it is the number eight The number nine is a small rock And When you look when you think well, there's a number nine. There's a small rock. It's the same thing What what could be planer than that? I mean if they come out of their Eerie up in the hill at the maths Institute and they say look we found out what the number eight is or we found out What the number nine is then? Anyone's reaction has been well, I'm sure the maths is great, but that can't be right Right, they just can't be right. How could that be? Yeah? I mean anyone's got that gonna have that reaction. You just cannot be right and similarly if you're told The feeling of sorrow is an electrochemical discharge You the nature anybody's reaction is just a kind of wonder as to how an earth that could possibly be true Yeah, the sensation of red just is synchronized firing in v4 How could that be you got this your head sliced off the top of your head sliced off You got the mirror you're looking at the brain and you're saying this experience I'm having right now is the same as that's chemical activity going on up there. How could that be? well One of the appeal one of the appeals of functionalism is that it's trying to explain What the connection could be between the feeling of sorrow and electrochemical discharge because? Suppose you describe what the causes and the effects of sorrow are I mean I don't say this is some advanced theory here I mean this is I just thought about this for about ten minutes But if you think about what the causes of sorrow are you have some well I mean isn't this sensible isn't there something like what the causes of sorrow you have some tragedy in your life There is some tragic event You pay attention to it if you just completely blanket you're maybe not going to feel the sorrow so much But if you get these two things attention in the tragic event then that's going to generate sorrow and If you're in this state of sorrow if you're plunged into sorrow by something Then what's going to happen next you might have a tendency to ruminate over the tragic event That will cause you to feel further emotions grief anger denial a desire for revenge However, it works And those in turn will feed back into the sorrow and the rumination may feed back into the sorrow So you get a kind of loop here. Yep right At the moment, I'm not I'm not thinking of whether the electrochemical discharges are what cause sorrow I'm thinking of whether they're the same thing as the sorrow, right? That's it. That's not your whole point, but this is one part of what you just said. Yeah So with a sociopath what you would expect looking in is that you don't find any brain structure That's playing this functional role If the sociopath is looking at a tragic event Paying attention to it then there isn't anything that is going to lead them to ruminate Feel further emotions go back to the sort go back to the original go back to the yes that That's what's missing in the sociopath anything that plays that kind of role You see what I mean that's what I'm saying Is that addressing your question? Yeah, we'll come back if it turns out there's more If everybody had the exact same brain, yeah, they would all be feeling the same So far that's what it seems to be saying because if everybody had the same functional structure They'd all have exactly the same mental states, but I say this is just getting ahead a little bit Can you come back to that in just a second? Oh the moment all I mean to be doing is saying This is what the functional structure of sorrow is and that seems kind of reasonable. Yeah No room for randomness Yeah, yeah, there's plenty of room for randomness these arrows don't mean The thing necessitates rumination. They just mean something like it generally causes Rumination or it increases the probability of rumination The difference about what causes what I mean if you say Grief leads to anger the kind of thing Yoda used to say right Then that's not to say grief always leads to anger or grief deterministically leads to anger It would not when Yoda says grief leads to anger It would not be a refutation of Yoda to say well, I once felt real grief, but I didn't get angry that time You see what I mean? Yoda's just making a statement about what generally happens what generally causes what so that state s has a tendency to cause Rumination and so on grief as a tendency to cause anger, but that's not to say it's exceptionalist But the general question you're raising here about about freedom That's what you mean to be raising right? Yeah, are you determined as everything out of your control? We're going to spend a significant amount of time on that look later But we're right at the start here. If you see what I mean, yeah, okay okay, um So I said just by thinking about it you can tell that's the functional structure of sorrow Something like that. I mean you could probably each of you could probably correct that a bit and make that a bit better But you can tell but there's something like that's not bad for sorrow so Then if you ask what makes this identical to a brain state What's gonna make the brain state relevant is the brain state has that functional role, too You knew just by thinking about it that sorrows get these causes and defects and then you find in the brain There's a particular electrochemical discharge that has these causes and defects and that was makes you say So sorrow is that electrochemical discharge? That's how it's intelligible That's how see with the number nine. You can't do that kind of stuff. You can't say anything about like You probably well, I don't know I can't see how to elaborate it straight off that you can say won't make something the number nine It won't make something a small rock that would make it intelligible how you identify them But here with sorrow and the electrochemical discharge you can do something like that You can say you know what the Functional role of sorrow is and it's clear what I mean by functional role the characteristic causes and defects the inputs and outputs of sorrow and then You find the particular brain states have just those characteristic causes and defects I've just those same cycle adjust those same functional roles And at that point you can say but what matters for it being sorrow is not which Brain state it is That's the thing about variable realizability You could have something that had a different brain state But just the same functional role for it and then you could say well, that would be sorrow then too Okay Is that all right? This if I'm explaining this clearly that should be yep How is that functionalism, okay Functionalism is the view that what makes a state the cycle a psychological state the psychological state it is is It's characteristic causes and effects Yeah So if it's got these inputs and outputs These inputs and outputs then it's sorrow Yeah, it doesn't matter which particular Chemicals or biological states it is so long as it's got these inputs and outputs, then it's going to be sorrow Is that completely plain at this point? I encourage you to say what the hell if I don't mean I don't mean that If if that's not completely clear yet, that's right chemicals can cause sorrow without being sorry. Yeah That is not the functionalist argument The thing is You've got a complex structure. You've got a complex bit of wiring in the brain Yeah, and the thing is that sorrow actually identifies a particular point in that wiring Do you see what I mean? It's not that so If you have an electrochemical discharge there that is Was realizing the sorrow is not that it's causing the sorrow That is taking the role of sorrow on Um Look if you take a switch take a door take a simple door, right? Door is a functional classification Very well realizability applies to doors, right? You can make a door or practically anything yeah, um Now I take it that this door is made of wood. I guess right. Okay. Do you have to make a door of wood? No, no, right. Can you make a door of lots of different stuff? Does the notion of variable realizability apply to doors? Yes, right. So but now take this block of wood Does that is that block of wood what makes it a door? No, but that block of wood has a functional role It's good two states open and shut when it's in the open state you can get in and out when it's not in the open state You can't get in and out, right? Yeah, but does that block of wood cause the existence of a door? No, that's the wrong way to think of it, right? That's what I mean That's what I don't like about your question if you don't mind me saying something That the block of wood is not causing the presence of a door That makes it sound like a door is something kind of shimmering beyond the wood You think wait a minute. I can only see the wood. Where's the door again? If this is just causing the door That couldn't be the right way to think of it, right? So the electrochemical structure in the brain is not causing the sorrow as if the sorrow was something over and above it Is that electrochemical discharge that is playing the functional role of the sorrow is this block of wood That is playing the role of the door Yeah, it doesn't cause the presence of a door. It's not quite right to say it actually is the door It's but there wouldn't be a door without it Okay, I hope that hasn't just got you puzzled about doors too, but anyway You're claiming that there has to be more Electrical discharge The reason for saying sorrow is not the same thing as any particular electrochemical discharge is like the reason that you can't define a family as something having less than 30 members, right? That is evidently possible that there could be families of more than 30 members is Evidently possible that there could be creatures of other species or whatever that don't have that electric electrochemical state But are capable of feeling sorrow That's the thing I began by rejecting, right? I'm not saying you just you just can't be sure look That's the point here. This statement is definitely true. That's what I'm saying right is Possible that pain is realized that there are different physical structures realizing pain if pain was just the same thing a C-fiber firing that statement about what's possible would not be true But it is definitely true Pain could be realized by different physical structures. That's what I began by saying That's right That's like saying conduct being a conductor is just the same thing as being made of copper If I just think about copper then be a conductor is just the same thing as copper, right? That would be that kind of argument. Yeah, that's missing the point. Yeah Yeah, of course very good. Yes. Yes, right exactly, right? So you yeah, that's a great example being a yeah Quarterback is a functionally defined notion of anything is right Quarterback has to do with the role that this thing plays in the whole system And if someone says well, but you're just saying there could be quarterbacks other than Tom Brady What if there were a look some kind of crazy idea about maybe there's a quarterback other than Tom Brady You can't be sure that Tom Brady is on the only quarterback. That's not the point, right? The quarterback is just the role that the thing is playing in the system Yeah, it just happens to be Tom Brady that is playing that role. Is that getting your point? Yeah, is that playing it right? Yep So your friend is sewing the legs off a dog and you sit by saying well, we can't be sure Really, I you know the thing is you say that kind of thing when you're in abstract discussion Well, you can't really be sure it's you can't I mean, of course You don't know whether it's in pain, but you don't really believe that for a moment in real life If someone was actually torturing a dog I promise you you'd be furious and if you didn't do something about it people would say to you but you could see it You can see it wasn't then. Yeah Lobsters are a difficult case. Lobster. I mean, that's why I gave them. They're a genuinely difficult case Yeah, I know it's very hard to to get your finger in that theoretically But I just promise you in real life when you're not doing philosophy You don't feel a moment's doubt about the distinction between these cases I mean nobody in their senses thinks that torturing animals for the fun of it It's just okay because we're really they might not be feeling pain. You see what I mean Well pains unpleasant yet. How do you well? What I was suggesting was you identify pain by this functional role I don't think I have it up there, but in this set of slides, but You identify pain as being typically caused by physical injury giving rise to Avoidance behavior Expressions of distress and so on Yeah, that's how you identify pain. Yeah, I think that's actually what you do in the lobster You would look at the functional structure of the lobster and see if there's something there that plays the functional role of pain receptors in the human Yeah, if you've got that complexity in structure, then that's all you can do by way of answering the question Does it feel pain? well There are two things here one is whether super spot. Do super Spartans have the same functional structure as human beings Yeah, okay If you've got the same functional structure as human beings and the question then is just does a lobster have that functional structure That's in common between humans and super Spartans That's right. You can mask it. You these like I said these see these arrows in this kind of diagram These arrows in this kind of diagram, but it's always gonna be pretty complex here I haven't shown any arrow to behavior here But if you but there should be ultimately arrows to behavior because people do express the sorrow But how you express your sorrow is not going to depend just on whether you're feeling sorrow It's going to depend on a whole bunch of stuff about What kind of person you think you're talking to what kind of is that friend or an enemy? What kind of context you're in You see what I mean what you do about your sorrow will depend on a whole bunch of internal factors Not just in the sorrow itself and similarly with pain how you express your pain behaviorally It just built into this kind of diagram. It will depend on a whole bunch of internal factors not just and whether you feel pain Yeah, yeah, you you the question for a while. Okay, right. No, okay Okay, so there's a question where this kind of diagram comes from this kind of I mean, I just did a kind of back of the envelope here the functional structure of sorrow here. So just as Remember talking about behaviorism. We said I said there are two traditional ways of thinking of behaviorism one is behaviorism as is a school of thought in psychology that took the view Psychology is a science of behavior Psychology should not be dealing with internal constructs, whether it's the brain or mind or anything else psychology should just be looking for laws governing behavior that deal with The kind of behavioral variables as outputs and variables about the environment as inputs And so behavior should be described and explained without many making any reference to mental events or other internal processes that was in science in psychology and Behaviorists like that would say we're going to throw common sense psychology out of the window It's up to science to decide how behavior is classified The kind of analytical behaviorism that we were talking about with rile the kind of analytical behaviorism that you get in That was more characteristic of mainstream philosophy was to say no We keep the ordinary notions of the mind. We keep ordinary concepts of pain suffering love joy bliss Ex to say just a few positive examples for a change I'm running out of positive examples Joy ecstasy bliss frills free songs all that stuff The they have their meaning in virtue of loose connections between the mental statements and statements about behavior to understand any of these statements is to Understand these kind of baggy connections that they have to lots of possible descriptions of behavior So this one is ties the behaviorism more to common sense talk about the mind Scientific behaviorism said let's throw out the way we ordinarily talk and start again scientifically. Yep Yeah No, I wouldn't mean by statements about the mind is stuff like pain joy suffering ecstasy bliss and so on yeah Feelings yeah thinking Brainstates things like assemblies of cell firings in v4 Yeah Meaning a particular physiological area there so I Said that Functionalism was really sciences philosophy of mind. I said this is the kind of thing that you standardly find in any Save vision science textbook you get a breakdown of the physiology of the brain And then you get told some story about the function functionally what each of these bits of the brain are doing That's what that's how science approaches the study of the brain in the mind. That is a scientific study of the mind And looking at it that way you might say well if we're going to define Give functional definitions of psychological states. You don't want to do it in the back of the envelope way I just did Really at the end of the day science defines the right functional categories for us to be using and studying human beings So that's one approach a kind of scientific functionalism Another approach is to say no we actually know what sorrow is already I'm sorry to say each of us in this room already knows what sorrow is You know it from having known it yourself or from having known people who felt it And when you say well, how do I know what kind of functional structure sorrow has well Really what's going on when you learn about the mind? What goes on is not When you're learning about other people's minds when you're you know three or four years old What goes on is not that you learn a whole bunch of definitions or that someone shows you a box and arrow diagram for sorrow You know now, you know what sorrow is what happens is you interact with other people you learn how to show a sympathy or hostility or affection for other people you learn as we say How to push other people's buttons you learn how to get on with other people socially That's what learning about the mind is and in doing that I mean an analogy might be like learning about base a basket ball right one way to learn about basketball is to read a book and Do the theory but the way you really learn about basketball usually is by playing with other people and learning How to react to them and when you're learning that you can There is a box and arrow diagram to be drawn or for a good basketball player does but When you write it down, you might do it well or badly I mean a good basketball player might be just terrific and knowing the functional structure of another player Knowing when a player that they've played against often They just know when they're going to be reckless when they're going to be weak when they're going to be strong But when you get them to write it down when you get them to talk about this what they say might not be very good Right is one thing being able to do it. It's another thing being able to write it down effectively. Yep That's right I'm saying just as there were two kinds of behaviorism one scientific the other one working Beginning with our ordinary understanding of the words. So there are two kinds of functionalism one scientific the other Beginning with our ordinary understanding of this of the terms our ordinary understanding of the words. Yeah, so what I'm saying is Learning the meaning of sorrow is something that we that kind of thing is something We all do learning what it means when someone's angry or grumpy or happy or whatever that's something you It's like learning basketball in that you don't do it By learning explicit definitions you learn it by learning how to play with other people Yeah, and what I'm doing in writing down that diagram writing down this diagram is Trying to make explicit Something that we all know tacitly Something that we all can do and you can be better or worse at making those things explicit But we all know really what it means when someone is feeling sorrow I mean if you encounter someone who's had something terrible behave happen to them, you know how to behave Some people are better at it than others But everyone's got some idea of how you behave then and that's a matter of understanding the functional structure of the other Person but making it and then the you just have to make that explicit So this is not really scientific functionalism. This is just taking our ordinary understanding of sorrow and making it articulate writing down a diagram of something that we all know perfectly well a Bit as if like learning to tie your shoes You can do the thing but what you've mastered when you try and write it down how to tie a shoeless That's not easy actually Yeah, yeah I know it's all arguing it's impossible. I just started doing that Is it's not trivial? You can you can make mistakes doing it and the important thing in everyday life is the actual practical skill of using this knowledge yep so When you get a diagram like just to play that one more time when you got a diagram like this There are two views you could have of why you would have a diagram like that for sorrow What is science told me? I did a whole bunch of studies of people and this is the way sorrow works That's what science is telling you Another way is to say this is something we all know from everyday life that we all use many times a Week in interacting with other people. We know that kind of stuff Anyway, we don't need science to tell us this You know what you don't need to do some scientific study to know what sorrow is That's just something we learn as part of ordinary social life Anything that didn't have that functional structure wouldn't be sorrow Okay, so these are two views of the sources of these kind of functional descriptions of sorrow Okay, here ends the first lesson Plain as day it looks it certainly looks at behavior. It looks at behavior as output Yeah, so in this kind of diagram just to go back. Yeah, ultimately you'd be looking at arrows to Keep crying looking for friends, you know Clutching your head. I don't know you'd have arrows going to that stuff. Yeah, the only thing is as I said, they'd be highly Indirect in the sense that it was not an arrow straight from the sorrow that was really behaviorism is a mistake To say you can do an arrow straight from this state to behavior Yeah, and that's not the way it goes at all How you behave is a product of a many many different psychological factors is never just one psychological factor at work There's always a ton of stuff going on underlying someone's behavior Yeah, so behavior certainly comes in in functionalism as the output As the ultimate output, but it's just that How should I say functionalism loves to dwell on the pathway to behavior? It says that's really the important thing not really so much the behavior itself Yeah, I mean the same is true in science that I Mean this is just talking about the sensory input, but I could equally well have put up a diagram about motor output Yeah, and the functional analysis of how you get motor output limb movements from the brain Okay, so is that clear why functionalism is almost irresistible. I mean, it's it's a very powerful idea Yeah, if I'm explaining this correctly, I hope you feel the pressure here to be functionalist because as I say is It is the current There is no other game in town really so far as the study of the mind and brain go functionalism is it Yeah The the only trouble is it can't possibly be right Or a tenured it. This is what blocks arguing Listen to blocks example of block head Remember that the way it goes with variable Realizability is that is natural to think that being in pain. Well, that has causes and effects But it's not defined in terms of its causes and effects and then variable realizability says no if it's got the right Input output structure. That's pain. That is the feeling of pain There's no more to the feeling of pain than having that input output structure Now here is blocks objection to functionalism He says well suppose we were to convert the government of China to functionalism This is another of these What if statements by the important point is that what blocks describing here is clearly possible this thing evidently makes sense We convert the government of China to functionalism and we convince its officials He doesn't really explain how you how you would do this or but anyway It would enormously and of how they would care it would enormously enhance their not international prestige To realize a human mind for an hour I Mean the really fantastic thing here is the picture of the politics of China, but anyway You could you can certainly imagine that right suppose you were a dictator who had great power in a country and you could do this right then All you do is you give each of the billion people in China Especially designed to a radio that connects them in the appropriate way to other persons and to an artificial body so basically What you're doing is you're getting each person in China to simulate a neuron Something like that. Yep. You're getting each person in China to have a particular functional role So you might say the task of one person is if the current state is s4 and the input is y Then the person's changes the current state to s5 and outputs L now When I say s5 and all that that does that sound terribly technical It is not terribly technical. This is What I was talking about with machine tables the last time when you remember it We were talking about how to describe functional organization and I said when you're describing the functional role of a state s4 What you do is this is in general how you describe functional role You say what the inputs are and for each input you say what output you get for that input and what state you get next Right remember that Yeah, yeah, yes, we remember that. Yes. Okay good Then that's all there is to functional organization having those right inputs and outputs Well, what block saying here is if that's all there is to functional organization then one person Could be s4 right you get your telephone your telephone. Let's have L and you change the state. Yeah Oh, that's right. That's right. That's right. There will be other states along here. That's right So this is just looking at zooming in on one particular bit of functional role But your brain is very complicated. Your mind is very complicated. There are lots of these structures all over the place No, it doesn't say that that could perfectly well happen different sensory inputs having the same outcome. Yep. No problem at all But that's all there is to functional organization. So whatever your functional organization is this The way that the people are being structured here With specially designed two-way radios connected to other people into an artificial body That could all be made to happen in a way that is absolutely functionally equivalent to you So take the way that you're functionally structured let right now if you have enough people and they are willing to cooperate Then they could duplicate your functional structure, right? I mean none of us is so complex that we have a functional structure that couldn't be duplicated in that way So what you've got here is you've got a robot You've got an artificial body that has been driven about by this complex structure of a billion people In just the same way that your body is being driven about Okay, so if your body reaches for water that body will reach for water If your body talks to someone else that body will talk to someone else Yeah, it's been in fact you could imagine All the people here being miniaturized and put inside the head of the artificial body And then you would have something that could look exactly like you Move and talk and act exactly like you someone Talking to the two of you would not be able to tell Which one was which which one was the one with a regular biological brain and which one had Lots and lots of people in it driving it about Yeah, it would be functionally exactly the same Anything you any test you did would be passed by both of them equally well Because any test you could have would be just a matter of giving more inputs to this structure And they both behave in the same way functionally so you get the same outputs So you're not going to have any test that can differentiate between you and this complex structure But blocks point is suppose you've got the thing being driven about by a billion people Does that if you call it a homuncular headed system does that have any mental states at all? There are the mental states of the individual people. Yeah, but the question but what that's right That's important, but what block here means to be asking is does the whole system? Have any mental states at all like with the Apple corporation you got well You get you got a complex structure, right? Each of the individuals there has mental states. There's the whole thing of mental states Hard to believe. Yep It was a general opinion Okay, that's very good. There could be general consensus among the people of China say that Let's say that there is general consensus among the people of China that Mars is going to be inhabitable eventually right but suppose we program the robot suppose we program them all to To Pull the levers in such a way that the robot says Mars will never be inhabitable They're just running the program right. They're just doing what they're told. They're just Being given their instructions and following their instructions So what the consensus is among these people is one thing and what the whole system is doing is another Yeah, I mean you actually get the same point with corporations that is one thing for everyone in a corporation to be perfectly good-hearted and The consensus among the corporation among all the individuals in the corporation might be never treat people badly The corporation as a whole can still be evil Yeah, I mean, that's not just an imagine. That's not just an imaginary example that can really happen. Yeah so The question here is can you make sense of any mental states being had by the whole robot? I mean the whole Structure of a billion people not just what the individual thinks not what the consensus is among the individuals Does it make any sense to suppose that the whole thing has some kind of mind? Yeah, the cricket team. Yes, right the keenest with which they play. Yes, right Yeah, you could put it like that that I mean that's very good But the thing is is one thing to take a kind of aggregate of the mental states of all the people there and that's really what you're talking about when you talk about keenness, but What we're talking about here is not an aggregate of what all the individuals feel But whether the whole system has a life of its own Yeah, because I mean with you it's not as if your feelings are a kind of aggregate of everything that your individual neurons are feeling Yeah, that's not it at all, right you the whole thing That's what that's where the mind comes on to the tracks when you're dealing with the whole human being Yeah, but this whole thing doesn't seem to have any feelings at all of its own and Let me just get home here and then I'll take those questions. Let me just get home here And I'll take those questions and the three Martin block makes It is especially you might wonder whether this whole structure has what philosophers have variously called qualitative states raw fields or immediate phenomenological properties and By that he means I don't know of any way of explaining this notion that he's after here But but by giving an example on when I was when I was at school. There was something that We then called Chinese bonds. I believe that here. They're called Indian bonds. Do you know what I mean? Okay, so would you stand up? Would you care to demonstrate you don't demonstrate to me, but just Yeah, right, right. You know this you can try this at home Try that try this with a friend right now if you're trying to explain what that feels like I mean, can you put your hand up if you've had this done to you? Okay Very good. It's funny how you know some things are just fads and fashions, but some things really stand fast Okay, so you know what that feels like that right so that feeling that you get but someone is really giving you a good one like that right That's what block means by a quality to state or a raw feel or an immediate Phenomenological property right it's something that just kind of lights up your sensations And the question is does blocks robot have anything like that? if you do that to blocks robot and all the if you take their arm the arm of the robot and all the guys inside are Phoning each other and pushing the buttons and connecting with each other and making the limbs move of the artificial robot Does that whole thing have anything like the feeling that you get when someone does that to you? What do you think put your hand up if you think the answer is yes? Wait a second if you think the answer is no If you think the answer is no that the robot doesn't have any that stuff if you have no idea what I'm talking about If you have no idea what I'm talking about your duty is to ask a question You should say where you got off the bus, but yeah The only things we know for certain are our own feelings I understand that when you're doing philosophy is really natural to take that line We only know our own feelings, but I just think that in real life. That's just not how any of us think Yeah, I mean look to take a harrowing example suppose your neighbors are abusing a child and The social work services said to you, but you knew this was going on Why didn't you tell someone and you say well I did philosophy three, you know, I realized I never know for certain whether I never accept yourself as feeling anything Yeah, you don't really believe that you see what I mean You nobody thinks up for a second if I'm someone sitting next to you shows a lot of distress You'd have to be sociopathic to just stare at them and say strange You see what I mean is it's very natural and abstract thinking to take that view But I just think we don't really believe that for an instant None of us. Yeah Okay Yeah, yeah, one two. That's a good question. I mean, what do you think? We've looked at four theories of what feelings are, okay, so what's your point? What are feelings? That's that's that's why this is a university course I mean We are looking at this is why consciousness there is the single sound bite answer to that And I would not be doing a class on this if there were a single quick sound bite answer to it. Yeah This is why consciousness is one of the top ten outstanding scientific problems There is no sound bite answer to the question. What is a feeling? It is really for you guys to think look Here are I'm really telling you the state of the art and theorizing about these things You have on this is philosophy. It's not like there is some hidden scientific knowledge here You have all the pieces and it's not like science. I mean what science has to tell you is Basically more about functional role. So it's not as if there is some hidden scientific thing here You have all the pieces you have all the pieces that I have actually And your task is Figure that out. Yeah, there isn't some piece that I'm keeping from you Yeah, there was a question here very good Now I agree Putnam did say that and I think that's very important It's one sign of Putnam's brilliance that it was there, you know, not a brief aside yet in that original article but The puzzling thing about that remark of Putnam's is why should you put that restriction on it? Yeah, why should you put that restriction? I mean, it's as if you said Functional structure is what makes something pain functional structure is what makes something love, but Of course the functional structure mustn't be made of more organisms Then why not? Because it is as if you said the functional structure mustn't be made of copper or it mustn't be made of carbon Well, why not if functional structure is the important thing then it shouldn't matter what the thing is made of Yeah, so it really seems just arbitrary to put that restriction on that Putnam did That that is I agree and that and But why not right That would see In effect what you're saying is put and do people know the passage that you're referring to that In that original article that we looked at last week Putnam did say he says it in a brief aside That you can't make this functional structure of smaller organisms Something made of bees shouldn't count as having a group mind and you're saying that's right If you make it a bees it can't have a group mind But the puzzling thing is why not because the functionalism seems to explain how that could happen You see what I mean? It's as if you were I mean if you had an argument that If you thought creatures made of metal Can't feel pen and then you said but look I'm a functionalist about pen So of course something made of metal could have the same functional structure as you or me Therefore something made of metal could feel pen and then you say well no What I meant by functionalism was if it's got the same functionalist structure of you or as you or me and it's not made of metal Well, why is that you see what I mean? Is that just because you're being? metalist as it were or anti-metal you see what I mean Exactly if you had a solution to the problem in the first place then how could How could that help? How do you have the right to make that move? Okay? Yeah To ectoplasm, that's right. You could say that that's right. You could say Well, you could say look humans. What's special about us is we've got the ectoplasm The group mind there doesn't have the ectoplasm, right? That's fine. The problem is I mean what I mean is that's fine What I mean is You can say that but in saying that what you've done is you've thrown the functionalism out of the window The whole point was to get away from the ectoplasm or to get away from the idea that it's just the particular brain state that matters Yeah, and in fact this problem for functionalism is very deep in the way functionalism is set up we're saying that all there is to being in pain is having this functional structure and then the trouble is that The robot can instantiate that structure, right with all these people pushing the levers and talking in the phone The robot can have that structure So you have to say the robot feels pen the robot can feel a Chinese burner, whatever it is And the way that happens is we're trying to be respectful of variable Realizability we're trying to say it doesn't matter what particular brain state you've got so long as you've got that functional structure That's how you can recognize that the Octopuses have pain because they've got that abstract functional structure That's how you can recognize that the aliens could feel pain because they could have that functional structure but the trouble is that The theory went so abstract in order to let in Aliens and octopuses and so on as having mental states not just us, but it's let in blockhead too Yeah That's right, that's right, but well There are a lot of room for maneuver in how you describe the inputs. Yeah, if you describe the input as If you can't have any bodily injury at all, then I guess there's a sense in which she's not capable of pain Yeah, yeah Well, the the if you cut to the robot it yells It says stop that yeah, if you divide the flesh of the robot I mean it doesn't flesh you if you divide the steel of the robot it cries out It says for God's sake says how can you do that? Yeah? You see what I mean, that's right that is right So what well, is it why don't you just programmed by genetics and your environment? Yeah, I mean how come if you get programmed by genetics in your environment You can feel sensation, but if you get the identical program being input by a human that doesn't count You could consider it'll be alive under variable realism sure Yeah, that's completely fair The only trouble is that whatever definition you give it's going to look like blockhead is alive, too You see what I mean Because suddenly if you saw a blockhead moving in that you'd say that things alive is generating its own movements and so on You see what I mean? That's right. Yeah. Yeah, last one. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you will look there too Yeah, look it's got the same functional structure as you it's functionally equivalent to you If giving the question what's your favorite color you say red that's what blockhead says Yeah, or if you're a favorite Output for that question is that's a stupid question. I already mean favorite color, right? That's what blockhead will say You see what I mean? Yeah. Yeah, blockhead will do whatever you do. Ah, sorry Okay, so there's a really deep the way the way Quick one. Yeah, well What we know is that there's no more according to functionalism There's no more to our mental states in the functional structure So whatever that functional structure turns out to be it will be possible for blockhead to implement it And we're not you know, we're not that complex. They're only finitely many neurons in the brain I mean in principle you can understand the whole thing functionally That's right. Yeah. Yeah, it's fine. I mean there are already animals where the brain has been fully mapped It's only a matter of time before the human brain is fully mapped No, we haven't done that yet, but when we do it will be put I mean that's what it is It's a functional diagram. That's what you're doing. So of course, it will be possible to get to have a blockhead Giving enough people what will do the same thing Yeah So Yeah, actually, this is the part passage from Putnam that one of the questioners just quoted no organism capable of feeling pain This is a decomposition into parts which separately process possess functional organizations Characteristic of mental states to rule out such organisms if they can kind of such swarms of ease a single pain feelers Yeah, so put them anticipated block subjection, but what I was saying earlier was it's hard to see why You put them has the right to make that separation as if he just said but actually my The best response to this I know was actually given by someone in this class a couple of years ago I haven't seen this response. It may be in the literature, but I haven't seen it This is by an undergraduate in this class. So I say this to go back to the Point I was making earlier. You have all the pieces here actually You you know you you have as much capacity to make a contribution to this as anyone else This seems to be a real contribution cash said Each of the people constituting blocks robot is a free agent Right. So when you think through what's going on with blocks robot Does it really have the same functional structure as a human being? No, because your neurons can't revolt Your neurons can't say what the hell are we doing this for are we being paid or what? The neurons can't get together and say this is dumb You see what I mean, but It's one of the great Simplifications you just take it on board with blocks example Look each of these people are just going to do exactly what they're told but each of these people is a free agent They can do whatever they like and that's party really what you know about this So that these people being on their phones and so on and moving the thing That's a matter of their voluntary agreement which could be withdrawn at any moment They really might all get together and say we are out of here We think this is stupid and demeaning and we're not having anything to do with it, right? The people could do that your neurons couldn't do that Therefore this structure the blockhead structure has a different functional organization to a human being a blockhead structure Could not have the same Structure as a human being if you look in the neurons firing in the human brain those neurons are not Individual agents. It's not as if they can withdraw So blockheads functional structure is going to actually be quite different to that of the human brain And it's because of that difference in functional structure that we resist so strongly The idea that blockhead has a mental life that seems to me an extremely powerful response and bet on part of the Functionalist to block subjection as I say that was none the graduate in this class And it seems to me as good as anything I've read in the literature So it may be we can hang on to the idea that pain is just a matter of having a particular functional structure one two, yeah You will have computers. Yeah, well Yeah, it depends what you mean. Yeah, I mean you you the whole idea of artificial intelligence is that you could Make something intelligent and sentient something conscious that was a machine. Yeah, and I Look things seemed more powerful than that Yeah, just because it seems so crazy to suppose that this thing can feel anything but when people talk about intelligent robots or Blade Runner Kind of scenarios where you have things that are conscious and feel even though they are artificially generated Yeah, it doesn't seem so most people feel a bit torn about that Yeah, on the one hand there are people who say nothing made of steel could have feelings the way I do and the other hand There are people who say but that's just Sentimental speciesism to think like that. Yep. Oh, you're the same question. Okay, right Okay, um, we could just a few minutes left Shall we we could go on but shall we try to do this thing about hearing what theses people would think of are going for? Is that a good idea? I haven't tried doing this before so let's see what happens Okay, I'm gonna give you another 10 seconds just to think about it and then I'll call on people at random Okay So remember your essay and you don't get to run for the door by the way so Okay, so You're deadly in a couple weeks. The first thing you've got to do is think of the main thesis for which you're going to argue in your essay Okay So I'll give you 10 seconds starting now to think of something. Okay in the blue t-shirt You You yeah What's your thought about writing about what? Dualism yeah, okay for or against Against dualism so your main thesis is going to be something like dualism is right. I think dualism is wrong. Yes. Yes Yes, that conceivability are going Great, okay. That's terrific. Okay. I'm just curious. I just want to hear something that's great That's exactly the kind of thing. Oh, yeah you Behaviorism are you for it? Very good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, okay, great You okay the animals with mental states like ours but without brains like ours. Yeah Salamander brains are very good. Yeah, okay That's great and it's great to work with a deep with a particular example there too. Excellent. I'm Actually, I'm just looking at whoever's got eye, okay, so I'm gonna catch In the red shop. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, you That's a good philosophical approach. Yeah There's a few important distinctions. I want to draw in a few years. I want to split. Yeah, right about behaviorism Yeah, yeah, so how do you mean split here's about different types of behaviorism or something like that? Okay, that's great. Okay. Um lady at the back I'm sorry just two seats from the Next year Well, one of whose arguments one of Putnam's arguments about hate behaviorism So looking at whether the Super Spartans argument is any good something like that So your main thesis is going to be something like I think the Super Spartans argument is terrific or I think it's no good or yeah Okay, okay, and you in the blue t-shirt and Let's have both of you Around the last person the two of you and I decide to the last person Yeah And and you Functionalism in favor of arguing in favor of functionalism. Okay, so the main thesis is going to be something like I think functionalism is a good thing Yeah, okay one two three Okay, isn't that what functionalism is? Okay. Okay. That's interesting. Okay. Okay One two. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry the green t-shirt Well, yeah, I think it's fine to just agree with someone Whether you're limited in how you can write is really I mean there's always a lot to be said in just explaining what someone's arguments are and Usually my own experiences And I think this is probably true for most people that if you try and write down What someone's argument for their position is whether it's blocked called Putnam or Descartes You usually find there's a point of which the argument doesn't really seem to work You see what I mean, you can't really explain convincingly what they're up to and that generates More writing of its own if you see what I mean because it's then obvious to you There's a big objection here and then you go to think what I'm going to say to that objection Yeah, then you'd have to rewrite the paper. Yeah, that's why I suggest you okay and the last one Yeah, yeah, you do have to directly answer one of the prompts. Yeah You are not encouraged to go off-road in this answer one of the prompts. Yeah, okay Thank you