3

against folk psychology

we ascribe mental states to others in order to explain and predict behvaior

no direct relation between our talk of states and someones behavior

relation is theoretical

psychological concepts are part of a theory that we use to predict and explain the behavior of other agents

we postulate unobservable entities to explain and predict behavior

mental states are ascriptions and they are fallible
use first to predict and explain behavior of other people, we can also ascribe them to ourselves

we know our own minds by means of introspection

we start from certain knowledge of your own mental states

we have to infer the mental states of others on the basis of their behavior

→ this is problematic ( problem of other minds)

we first learn to ascribe mental states to other agents to predict / explain their behavior

only secondly start to ascribe mental states to ourselves as well

folk psychology : everyday practice

theory of mind: the capacity itself to do so

1. investigate the linguistic practice in which we use the theory → externalists
2. investigate the individual capacities underlying folk psychology and their development → internist

### Is folk psychology a good theory ?

1. how much it explains
2. wether and to what extent there is progress
3. to what extent it fits with whatever else is found by science

many phenomena remain unexplained with folk psychology
folk psychology resists reduction and does not fit in well with the findings of neuroscience
historical track record is one of pure stagnation ( last 2000 years)

historical parallels : witches , phlogiston , ether etc
soical practice will change substantially in the light of a :truly adequate neuropsychology

eliminitivism

(extreme and controversial proposal )

folk psychology should be eliminated and replaced by neuroscientific theory

should base our understanding on neuropsychology rater than trying to understand and explain from the outside

Chirchlands did not think that mental states could or should be reduced to brain states ( reduction vs elimination )

new brain reading research

brain to brain interference (research by Nicoleis or rats communicating by internet )

interpretstionaism

it is good enough and we shoudl keep it

1. physical stance : objective behave according to the laws of physics. High predictive power, very impractical
2. design stance : objects behave as if they are designed with a specific function , Good predictive power, much more practical
3. intentional stance: objects behave as ideal rational agents with beliefs and desires ( folk psychology), Average predictive power, extremely practical !

folk psychology depends on intentional stances

three stances for the prediction and explanation of behavior : physical , design, intentional

stance " how we make sense of it "

we attribute mental states to others in order. to explain and predict their behaviour ( folk psychology )

folk psychology as a theory is rooted in our everyday practice of making sense of other agents

Churchland : specific criteria ( predictive/explenatory power )

Dennet practical utility

psychology needs to be eliminated an replaced by mature neuroscience

we need psychology to make sense of neuroscientific findings

1) a magnet attracts iron ( functional explanation)

2) a magnet has a micro physical structure that creates a field around in that way ....( physical explanation)