 Today, we are going to discuss materialism. Materialistic theory of mind is a theory which talks about mind and brain are two identical entities, materialism advocates that matter is real and matter causes the mind hence mental is identical with the physical. This is simply the theory of materialism. Today, we are going to discuss about varieties of materialism meaning thereby we will be discussing about behaviorism, we will be discussing about functionalism and identity theory. We have already mentioned about behaviorism in last two classes I think. Particularly in the last class he did talk about the philosophical behaviorism of Gilbert trial. I would like to further this thesis of behaviorism. Today, little you know elaboration is necessary and as you know Ryle's theory of mind or Ryle's conception of mind is not really the behavioristic notion of mind. Ryle does not talk about mind brain identity, Ryle does not talk about mind body identity. Ryle in his philosophical thesis tries to argue that there is nothing mystical about the human mind. So, that is one of the propositions I think we should take very seriously. The other one which Ryle says the mind as it has been argued by Descartes or other religious theories makes it a substance. I mean these theories argue that mind is a substance and Ryle is against this substantive notion of mind. So, behaviorism and mind body identity theory takes up three important questions. I think these are my formulations of course, but I would like to share with you that these questions are very important to us when we talk about identity theory, when we talk about behavioristic or functionalist theory of mind. The first question says are mental events distinct from physical events? I mean if mental and physical are real then what is the connection between the two? I have mentioned earlier that mind and brain are causally related in the case of identity theory of mind. So, the answer will be even if they are distinct they are causally connected, mind can be explained in terms of certain functions of the brain. So, that would be the thesis of the functionalist, how there is a function involved in the brain. Now, when say for example, the identity theories to talk about the concept of mind or take up this particular question then they say that this is the state to state identity. If there is a mental state then mental state is identical with brain state. So, there is a state to state identity or there are multiple brain states and multiple brain states can cause a mental state or a few mental states. So, that is to be seen if we are posing these questions are they two different entities. If at all they are two different entities then there is a certainly a relationship between these two entities. Then the second question that is very important for us does thinking occur to us. Now, thinking is a mental activity according to Descartes and those who suppose that there is something called mind and it is real. For them thinking does not occur, thinking is not caused by mental state. So, mind is not any kind of physical processes, rather mind is self-sufficient to cause action or to cause behaviors. So, mind is a kajaswi, mind is a substance, it is a kajaswi, it is a cause in itself. So, that is very important. So, the identity theorist and the behaviorist would try to reject this thesis that mind is not self-caused. So, therefore, this question is very significant to us that is mind is not caused by the brain processes or mind is caused by brain processes. So, we have to see this, we have to explicate this question and try to see whether a causal thesis that mind is caused by brain processes or thinking occurs because of certain complex causal function of the brain that we need to look at it. Many functionalists would like to adhere to this thesis that thinking is or intelligence or certain mental states are occurring out of certain complex physical chemical processes that are happening in the brain. So, therefore, the very idea of the occurrence of consciousness or the occurrence of the mind or the emergence of mind, let me put it this way, the emergence of mind is certainly having a causal root. So, that is what is very significant to us. Then, let us look at the third question. The third question tells us that mind is not a cause in itself, it is a cause in itself. What will happen if we are able to literally see the mental states? I mean because what we are able to find out from this materialistic thesis is that we try to prove that there is nothing called mind because it is an unobservable phenomenon, then it does not fall in the framework of the scientific investigation. But maybe it is just a feeling, maybe it is just a kind of an effect that we are realizing. So, for example, my experience of certain particular thing or a state of affairs is a kind of an outcome or is a product of certain physical processes. So, from this point of view if we look at the concept of mind, then mind is not an observable phenomenon, rather it is an unobservable phenomenon, it is therefore insignificant to us to talk about mind. So, what we rather need to investigate here is the kind of neurological processes that are involved and what are the states and how these neural states are connected and how they are functioning or what is the collective function of different parts of the brains and brains has different parts as subsystems. So, what we need to investigate here is the kind of neurological processes that are involved and what are the states and how these neural states are connected and how they are functioning or what is the collective function of different parts of the brains and brains has different parts as subsystems, how they interact with each other and how they produce mind or consciousness. So, that is become a central thesis for this materialistic theory of mind. Now, let us talk about behaviorism in particular. Now, as I mentioned earlier that behavioristic notion of mind advocated by Watson, and many others, they talk about behaviorism that it is through behavior we are trying to understand the mind. So, mind is just a kind of a, you know, is presupposed that there exists a mind, we do not really see mind, we do not really observe mind. So, what is observable and what is measurable is something you know important for a scientific understanding of mind. So, behaviorism particularly the experimental behaviorism talks about how human behaviors are recordable, how human behaviors can be measured and how they can contribute for the formulation of a particular law, what you can call it a psychophysical law or the law which would help us explaining or predicting human behaviors. So, so behaviorists were really concerned about measuring human behaviors and that was very significant for them and look at how church land summarizes the concept of mind advocated by the behaviorist. Now, according to church land, my behavior by behavior behaviorist mean the publicly observable, measurable, recordable activity of the subject at issue. Now, you can call it a human subject. So, human subject issues or produces bodily movements, noise, emitted, temperature changes, chemical released, interaction with the environment and so forth. So, it is the human subject which are really swing and all these features or properties or symptoms can be measurable or recordable. So, for example, what kind of bodily movements one make when one is suffering from fever or one is suffering from headache and what kind of neural processes are involved, which neuron is fired. I mean, as you all know, whenever we have a pain behavior behaviorist should do it. So, that causes pain. So, and how we talk about noise emissions, the chemical released in the brain. Now, all these are very important when we talk about the measurement or recording behaviors of the human subjects. So, what is important therefore, is to formulate a law. And now, to formulate a law, what is important is to formulate a law. So, the first thing is to formulate a law. So, what is important therefore, is to formulate a law. Laws that would explain human behavior is not a easy task, because human beings behave in different context, in different way. So, therefore, environment is important. In what environment a human subject, a particular human subject behaves in a particular way. So, therefore, there is certainly reference to the external world, the world that can cause or produce certain kind of behavior or has a kind of a causal influence on the subject. So, what is important? To produce certain behavior. So, this causal mechanism is something very significant for the behavioristic understanding of human mind. So, once those causal relations are pointed out, probably that will also contribute for the formulation of the laws. So, it is not that we need to record only in what context somebody cries or what context somebody says that he has had a headache or something like that. Now, that is indeed important, but what is still need to be taken into account is that human mind is a very important in what circumstance human beings behave. So, what is the kind of an external environment where he has been put? So, that if he is put in a particular context, then he probably would behave like this. If he is put in some other context, he would probably behave like that. So, if the context change, then the behavior also would likely to be changed. So, in those directions behaviors are also taken now as a as a recordable fact are also taken into account. So, now let us talk about what to be understood from this. Now, so there is certainly a kind of a causal connection connection which is external, I mean the causes which is external and then if it is impinging on the subject, then it produces. But what is the structure of the subject? What constitute the subject? The subject must have some kind of a potentials. Now, unless there is the subject has some kind of a potential to produce a particular behavior, then if this potential is absent in the particular subject, then probably it will not. It will not produce that kind of effect. So, that is what the potentiality of the subject, that is how the subject is constituted. So, what kind of physicality of the being we are talking about? So, that is what is important. So, understanding the actual and the potential pattern of the behavior is taken into account to understand the mind. So, you are not only trying to understand what is the actual behavior, rather what is the potentiality and how does we can develop a kind of a pattern by recognizing those potential conditions and then formulate the law. So, that is why it is importance to that. So, emotions, belief, desires, etcetera are not ghostly inner episodes as Ryle would, this is the particularly typically Rylean terms that mind is a ghostly entity, but he says these emotions that human beings are expression or the belief that as a mental state which is there or a desire that is another mental state, another kind of mental state are there in, there with us are not really ghostly episodes of human mind. So, they are potential there. I mean I mentioned about this particular term called disposition. Now, disposition is something very important. Now, when we say that P is a kind of a disposed state, dispositional state, so P has the potential to create some kind of behavior. I mean the behavior is a kind of a manifestation of behavior is been manifested in the sense that you have an external cause and that external cause is impinging on the kind of the body which is potentially capable of producing a kind of a behavior. So, the behavior is a kind of a manifestation. It is and I had given this example, I remember that I talked about brittle, the glass. So, for example, this particular body is a glass wire, let us say this is a glass wire, this is a glass and this particular glass is as we know is brittle. Now, if it is hit by an external hard object, if we have an external hard object hitting this particular object or the body, the physical structure of the glass, then the glass breaks down. So, that is the manifestation I am talking about and that is what is Ryle was concerned with. Ryle says, when we talk about behaviors, we find that these behaviors are observable and that will give a clue to understand what is the physical structure of the glass. What kind of dispositions we all have? So, beliefs, desires are dispositional states, they are dispositional states and these dispositional states are potentially there, they are composed in a particular state and whenever they encounter, whenever they come across a kind of an external cause and that external cause can give rise to a kind of a response, there is some kind of a response to this. So, there is a cause and there is a mechanism and that mechanism produces some kind of an effect. So, it is with this kind of a causal interaction, we need to understand that there is nothing called hidden, there is nothing hidden about the human mind, whether human mind is exhibited by, whether human mind is exhibited to us in the form of behaviors. So, that is what is talking about. And I also mentioned that why human mind is exhibited to us in the form of behaviors. Ryle or other behaviors are concerned with the non-existence of mind. The mind is a substance is to be recognized as a kind of a pseudo physical entity. It is an epiphenomenon for them. So, it is precisely because the kind of influence from logical positivist. Now, logical positivist, as you know, are concerned with this question of the meaning. And as I said, what is important in the case of meaning for a logical positivist is the logical analysis of the language. So, logical positivist were influenced by a logical positivist. The success of science and they adopted scientific method and verification is a kind of a method used to explain how meaning is being construed within a particular theoretical framework. So, if you say that mind is this and mind can cause certain behaviors, or certain actions, then they would like to look it. What are these actions? They would like to verify. They will try to find out whether there is an evidence to this particular statement that mind is causing action. Now, if that is not verifiable, then it becomes a kind of a pseudo problem for them. So, the Cartesian dualism, according to the logical positivist, is the logical positivist. So, the logical positivist is the logical positivist. So, the logical positivist is responsible for advocating certain pseudo problems in philosophy of mind. And therefore, these problems are to be eliminated and these problems are to be discussed as nonsensical problems. They are really not the problems, rather they are pseudo problems. So, this kind of development, which was happening in the 20th century, particularly in the mid 20th century, was something very significant when some of the behaviorists are also coming up with the evidences, particularly the experimental behaviorist coming up with the evidences that, yes, in such and such context human mind would behave like this. So, there was also a kind of a things which, say for example, Freudian psychology was talking about, not the experimental psychology, when Freud talks about the analysis of human behaviors, how the human behaviorist is not a very good behaviorist. So, it is not a very good behaviorist. We can analyze human behavior, referring to certain state of mind and according to Freud, there is something called an unconscious state of mind. One may ask the questions, does Freud talk about the mind at all, the way Descartes is theorizing the mind? The answer is no. The Cartesian mind is a thinking mind. The Cartesian mind is a fully conscious mind. You cannot imagine this mind without consciousness. So, therefore, the Freudian notion of unconscious is something, in fact, indirectly supports the behaviorist notion of mind or the materialistic notion of mind. So, we would come back to that. Now, what are the conditions? I mean, the culture of materialism, which was there, which helped materialism to flourish, or materialistic theory of mind to flourish. We will talk about that little later. But, what is important here is to take note of is that, Ryle was probably influenced by the materialistic notion of mind. So, the materialistic notion of mind, which was there, which helped materialism to flourish, or materialistic theory of mind to flourish. We will talk about that little later. But, what is important here is to take note of is that, Ryle was probably influenced by the logical positivist. So, Ryle's philosophical behaviorism, when he talks about the meaning of the concept of mind, the kind of language which was used to theorize mind, was certainly, you know, give us an impression that, you know, probably, Ryle was influenced by the development that was happening in particular philosophical circle called logical positivism. And, you know, this circle, I mean, this cloth was also known as Vienna circle. And, you know, it was also known as Vienna circle. And, you know, it was also known as Vienna circle. And, I have mentioned about this few philosophers who were part of the Vienna circle as a higher, noticeably, Rudolf Karnab and Erlewood Kinstein were very influential in developing new ideas about the concept of mind. So, that is very important. And, if you look at positivism, then we can also historically stress that how logical positivist were radically empiricist. That is, you know, something significant. And, you know, Hume, who is considered as one of the radical empiricists, had this idea that there is nothing called mind. And, Hume was really rejecting the rationalist thesis that mind is a substance of mind. So, for Hume, meaningful statements about the world must be expressible as statements about the actual and possible observations. This is Hume's notion that how, when you talk about meaningful statements, then it should be expressible in terms of actual or possible observations. That was something very significant. And, if you, I mean, bachelors are unmarried or 3 plus 2 is equal to 5 are certainly statements which are considered as meaningful in a context. But, look at Hume's, in particular this statement of Hume, the substantive assertions about the world are made with the statements of matters of facts. So, and all matters of facts are observable facts. And, the assertions that concerned only with the conceptual or linguistic framework in terms of which we form substantive assertions are statements of relation of ideas. There are statements of facts and there are relations of ideas. So, when we talk about 3 plus 2 is equal to 5 and we certainly talk about the conceptual or linguistic framework in terms of which we form substantive assertions. So, when we talk about how mathematical propositions or mathematical statements are possible or how these statements are formulated, based on the evidences, based on when how do we count numerically the certain objects like 1, 2, 3, 3 apples and 2 apples and make 5 apples. So, that kind of evidences, because you do not really see the number there as an existing object like apples, we really count them and that with the help of numbers. So, that gives an idea about the relation of ideas to the and the verificationist theory of meaning is derived from this typical human position about the concept of mind. So, logical positivist were radical empiricist in that sense. And, you all know that when Hume talked about mind, Hume says whenever I try to look it, I am just summarizing it, whenever I try to look it, I am just summarizing it. Whenever I try to find out the mind, I only came across or stumbled again and again on my experiences. So, empiricist take experience into account according to them, experience is the foundation of knowledge. So, the empiricist epistemology tried to point out that how experience is important and it is this experience is simple. So, for example, that I am looking at you is important, it is not important, it is not important. How or what causes this experience? Is this experience a voluntary experience? That is, that has not bothered Hume much. The main concern for Hume was to take experience as a kind of a discreet phenomenon and see that, there is no necessary connection between, say, the mental and this, the physical. So, let us look at the experimental psychology, which was, you know, Hempel also, you know, was interested in. I am trying to give what are the philosophical presuppositions behaviorist had. I think when you read behaviorism or behavioristic theory of mind, you must read little bit of logical positivism. That would help you to understand, you know, how behaviorism is being influenced by logical positivism. Carl Hempel is also very, you know, puts an important thesis on the thesis like this, that a meaningful psychological statements can be translated into the proposition of physics. Look at the methodology in which, you know, experimental psychology tried to look at human mind. Psychology colloge are very similar to the methodologies of psychological psychology. In which, you know, experimental psychology tried to look at human mind. Psychology colloge are very similar to the laws of physics. So, when they say psychology is the science of mind, they were really trying to translate psychological laws or try to see that those psychological laws are formulated systematically at par with the physical laws. So, that was, you know, the Hempel's reading of the development that was happening in experimental psychology. What do you understand? You understand only the underlying science or symptoms of the mental states and then try to understand the psychological laws. In fact, scientific observations are carried out with the help of scientific apparatus. Those apparatuses are important to recognize the science and the symptoms. So, the unobservable mental phenomena are complex psychological cause for the behaviors. So, because what they find is certain kind of a physical state, the existence of a physical state or the operation of the physical state or the kind of a chemical secretion that is happening in the brain or the kind of neural firing, the other kind of a physical state. The other neurons trying to send, you know, signals by radiating certain electrical waves, electrical magnetic waves. So, that was, you know, any kind of an important observation which experimental psychologists were talking about. Now, Hempel, therefore, is very important when he talks about the development of physical methods in experimental psychology. Let me talk about little bit on just one reference. I mentioned earlier that Freud's psychology was only concerned with the analysis of mind. So, probably the Freudian psychology can be called an introspective psychology. Whereas, the kind of psychology which was developed by Watson, Skinner, and their followers can be called experimental psychology, where experimental psychology is called as proper scientific psychology, because it was concerned with certain observable panamnans and mass, wavelength, temperature, field intensity are certainly observable panamnans. So, bodily behaviors with which human and the animal respond to changes in the case of physical environment, their existence and physical environment are taken into considerations. So, experimental psychology was mostly concerned with the scientific evidences, and they were really not describing what is the mind, rather rather the physical environment. They were only concerned with the explanation of the mind. So, the concept like introspection, experience, intention are considered as, you know, as part of the dispositional capacity of the brain. So, nature of expressions, as I mentioned earlier, that if p is used, they can have a concise and complete description of a particular state, then this p which represents a kind of an expression of the mind. For example, desire is a mental state, and desire can be expressed in language, can be represented in language. So, those, when I try to verify p, I must look at what kind of brain state it is. So, verification will talk about, you know, the cause that is causing a kind of a behavior, a symptom, that is causing a symptom which is as a root, and the root is a kind of an event which is taking place in the brain. If that event is not verifiable, then we consider that event is a kind of a pseudo, or the expression is a kind of a pseudo state. Now, the experimental psychology which was advocated by Hample and is something very significant in the sense that, Hample was interested in looking at the methods which would help us explaining, you know, the behaviors, human behaviors. That was, you know, so, the experimental psychology which was concerned with. Now, these methods, as I mentioned earlier, are not so much to me, because these methods, as I mentioned earlier, their methods, they can be expressed in the way of the mind, in the way of the mind. chemistry. So, these methods are prepared, these methods are formulated at par with as I said, at par with the kind of scientific methods which we find in natural sciences particularly physics. So, the natural laws and the psychological laws are almost identical in terms of their ఆ NICKాధి ఆపభరాం меняటం听� proactive ఆది 89. Kern పమర్ొ ఆటిస్టె ఇ్ధకాచేదారండొటా్ాటాన మఓర్న్పపెడందిన మాంటి]..�ి pequన్సివి. అఀనవపంటడంటివద మాపయికిడ్. Нет, രഓണ�膀 Ouais애ിയ�弁 നരി recruited scarf നലം Lord ല࿅ stories, blowing the human behavior. So the methodological behave zum trying to you know attempt it to put psychology in a respectful scientific footing. It emphasizes that Thom human behaviors are observer and there are laws which can what kind of behavior it can produce. So, there is a kind of a stimulus response theory was developed by the experimental psychologist. As I mentioned earlier in the case of a body brittle example, where we can really talk about now there is a kind of a stimulus and there is a kind of a response and you have particular stimulus say P and P1 than we find that this is that the frequency is more and it is also taken in that it is in a particular context or particular environment and you know this is happening so then that helps them to formulate the laws that are has the waheg ALF is 400 qu錳 w reads 100 422sen tells 100 so then that helps them to formulate the laws of now occurrences is very important in this context. What is nullified is this that there is no inner or there is no inner qualitative expereences. These experiences are not qualitatively significant, rather what is significant is what is the stimulus the body, and how this body, know, caused the responses. So, behaviorism particularly, the experimental behaviorism, started talking about, or form, formulated certain methods to understand the behaviors, or to understand the mind in terms of the behavior, to understand the mind in terms of the behavior. the behaviors or to understand the mind in terms of behaviors, in fact it explain those dispositions with the help of the certain laws, psycho physical laws you can call them psycho physical laws, because they are not purely physical laws, they are psycho physicalendra . D Bod diniMaster the vis si a d h undo síndi, more philosophical dise and the experimental behaviourism. Where theoretically supporting each other, because in the case of riles physical behaviourism�泡 was trying to reject the semantic significance of the mental and various mental phenomena because they are not real and what is real is only certain dispositions which are considered real and and and with As d'Ep Amy nà where the in the we are kè e çeles experimental psychology you will find that this reality is taken more seriously in in the娟na that they are trying to record those observable facts ren成 conflict cüane-snap purpose  fairness elas  philos�� extinction of mind that is very clear now the question is whether there is a mind at all to this questions the answer is no in the sense that even if there is a mind that is an unobserved problem and this mind is not seen ్ ్, ఋర్ర్ నిస్యో రండ్ల్చ ప్ల్క్లెం చ్స్్పాాసార్న్రంతిన్. ప్మనఇకంవరి, ప్మాపక్టిక్న్రం, మనమన్లాసాక్టాప్టారిన్. the mind. So, wat is observable is real and it is through symptoms we can formulate the laws. So, that is wat is something significant. And there is another point, which is to be noted is here. When you talk about dispositions and dispositional properties. We must look at that mental dispositions like desire, or fear, emotion, etcetera, there can be multi-tracked dispositions. It is not that if there is a desire state, say for example there is a desire state and this desire can cause a particular kind of behaviour. say for example, there is a desire state and this desire can cause a particular kind of behavior, no this is no there is no one to one correspondence always, but there can be a kind of a multi tract evidences where you have various things causing you know another behavior, so this kind of relationship is also possible. We need to look at the concept of dispositions very clearly, I am sure you would read Ryle's famous book, the concept of mind, it is one of the classics written in the philosophy of mind, where Ryle has a special chapter on dispositions and I am sure that will enlighten you to understand how dispositions are important to talk about human behaviors. So, Ryle's philosophical behaviorism as we know is something very significant when they talk about headache or solubility etcetera that everything is a you know potentially there and that can manifest different behaviors or different actions and what was important for Ryle or the behaviorist is this that there is nothing called mind which is real and it is to be considered as one of the substances. So, that was something significant and the absence of mind or the absence of inner experiences are also nullified. So, the idea that mind is essentially there and that constitutes the experience is something insignificant for the behaviorist, both experimental behaviorist and the philosophical behaviorism, both were trying to reject this thesis that there is no kind of a inner experiences and this inner is as a private phenomenon is to be rejected. So, there is no privacy embedded in the discourse of mind, that was very significant when we talk about the behaviorism as one of the theories of materialism, because materialism as I mentioned earlier has many other theories. We can talk about brain mind identity theory, following this I would talk about brain mind identity theory and functionalism in my next classes, but and there I would be discussing about arm strong ut place and see that how arm strong and place talk about mind brain identity theory, do they really reject the mind that was the that will be the questions which we would discuss in the next class. Thank you.