Do Humans have Free Will? Who is making the decisions in our lives? Can a case be made for Eliminativism?

Can a case be made for Eliminativism?

What is eliminativism?

Eliminativism is the idea that our current common-sense view of the mind is wrong. That our mental states thought previously by our common-sense thinking do not actually exist and don’t have a role to play in the mature thinking using science. Improvements to Neuroscience has advanced and there is evidence of the chemical reactions in the brain. An eliminativist position states that it will soon be able to explain all behaviour using brain states and causal laws.

Beliefs and desires are just a theory that is used to explain our human behaviour. This theory has been called folk psychology. Due to advances in science and understanding of how the brain works, these theories may now be false. When a theory is discovered to be false due to improvement in understanding or new evidence being presented, then these old theories should be eliminated from the modern and most recent scientific conversation. Eliminativism suggests that our human beliefs and desires that we think of as who we are is false and beliefs and desires do not actually exist. So like other theories that in the past may have been the best think for example astrology as science have proven them wrong this thinking has been eliminated

Eliminativism suggests that the mind and body problem will never be solved because there isn’t actually a mind at all. The idea of a mind has been disproven by the improvements of science. Today looking at science we can see the evidence of biochemical reactions in the brain rather than actually being a physical mind present. It is thought that neuroscience can now explain all behaviour. Our common understanding of our thinking about our mental states is wrong. The common-sense view of belief and desire is wrong.

When humans first discovered fire the explanation of how fire works may have been that it is ‘fire demons’ that create fire. These ‘fire demons’ eat wood and the more you feed the ‘fire demons’ wood the bigger they grow. This causal relationship may be correct (more wood equals more fire) however as our scientific knowledge has improved and there is better evidence to support our theories. We now have better technology and a better understanding of chemistry to understand that this theory of fire demons eating wood has now been eliminated from scientific discussions. The eliminativists think that mental state will follow in the same way fire demons as scientific discoveries will give better evidence that mental states don’t exist.

The main argument for eliminativism is an inductive one. In the past humans gave everything a mental state. A volcano would erupt because it was angry, or the river was generous or the moon was jealous. Science has now come up with better explanations of this than the explanation we used in the past. Science has suggested better explanations of other living things. For example, a woodlouse might have thought to like the damp and it moves towards damp conditions. It is now thought that mechanism called a kinesis meaning that when the air around it is dry a woodlouse will move in the direction it faces and the speed in which it moves depends on how dry the air is. Science is able to test this idea using experiments and using evidence to come to this conclusion. Once it is understood about kinesis the theory of the woodlice having a mind is made redundant as the theory of the volcano erupting when it becomes angry.

There is a case for eliminativism. The elimativist argument is in three parts. 1) When a belief of an entity is the result of folk theory and then this theory (or common-sense assumption) is superseded by better scientific evidence (or theory), then the scientific community should stop believing in this previous theory. 2) The belief in the mind is the result of folk theory and has now been superseded by neuroscience. 3) This means we should stop believing in that the mind exists.

To agree with the eliminativist argument means coming to the conclusion that one day science will show that the human mind is redundant, and the idea of a human mind will be the same as the theory of fire demons creating fire.

According to the philopsopher Paul Churchlands, who questions the current explaination on why we dream, various aspects of mental illness, consciousness, memory and learning are completely ignored by folk psychology. For example, they have argued that any accurate theory should give a fertile research program with considerable explanatory power, however this isn’t the case. Folk Psychology's development has not been significant, and it is therefore a stagnating theory

Churchland rejects Folk Psychology because it relies not only upon empirical observation of others, but also upon introspective experience.

The counter argument to this eliminativist argument is the existence of the mind is a result of observation. This means we understand that we have a mind as we can obverse this ourselves. We smile when we feel pleasure or get angry, we frown. This means the existence of the mind is a logical consequence of this observation. The existence of other minds is understood because we have observed this behaviour in ourselves and therefore, we can observe this behaviour in others. Perhaps this experience is just an illusion but what is an illusion? It is an experience and science has experienced the understanding of neuroscience and experience.

There is another common-sense argument. If anger doesn’t exist, then what do I feel when I get mad? I have belief so therefore belief must exist. If folk theory is just a theory, then why is it not plausible someone getting angry and you observing someone throwing a plate against the wall. In order to believe that anger doesn’t exist you have to believe that there is a thing called anger. Paul Boghossian when writing about philosophy, have attempted to show that eliminativism is in some sense self-refuting,

A further argument against the eliminativist is the consideration that humans undergo subjective experiences and their conscious mental states have qualia. Qualia means the way things seem to us. There are differences in the way things taste to each of us. Eating spicy chillies may be pleasurable for someone however eating the same chilli may cause pain for others. You may know nothing more intimately than your own qualia. Descartes claimed to doubt everything that could be doubted, but he never doubted that his conscious experiences had qualia.

One of the challenges of the mind is that our definitions are often poorly defined. What actually is belief and how to you prove or measure someone’s belief? Or what is desire? When people talk about the free will there is no area in the brain where free will is located unlike the heart or stomach. There is actually an inadequacy of natural languages of defining subjective experiences.

In the past all elements were known as earth, water, air and fire. As science improved and humans gained more knowledge and understanding more elements were introduced like oxygen, hydrogen, gold and tin. This mean the previous four categories were eliminated. As science progressed more categories were understood and added. Experience should be reduced to a biological level not a subjective experience. The way in which we understand ourselves could be rethought. The idea of the will for example there is no area in the human brain where the will is located, meaning that there is a discussion of if the will actually exists in the part of the human brain. This means that the will can be eliminated not necessary from everyday speech but from scientific language and research as processes of neuro science improve and there is better evidence that there no longer made up of the human brain.

If attitudes like freedom, choice, anger and blame are removed from our world, then human agency is denied. Nothing is anyone’s fault. We could smash a plate or hurt someone, and it is not anyone’s fault, we can blame it on our brain processes rather than the choices we make.

To agree with the eliminativist argument, is to accept at least the possibility that science will one day prove that the human mind is redundant. if neuroscience ever succeeds in explaining all known human behaviour, we humans and our minds will go the way of woodlouse and mountain minds.

In conclusion This means that there can be an argument of eliminatisim especially as science improve and even as there is increasing improvements of artificial intelligence. This mean science will one day explain everything including all our own behaviour

Unless we can find another way to account for meaning, therefore, it would seem that the elimination of the attitudes will entail the elimination of meaning.

If there no longer is an attitude of belief, then how can we understand what is true and what is false. If beliefs are no longer real, then we eliminate truth and how can we accurately represent the world when we eliminate truth.

Perhaps in the future as science improves, we will learn a new vocabulary and interpretations of our mind. Rather than saying David is insane we will start to say David has excessive dopamine receptors in his mesolimbic system.

In the book Millennial Money Mindset: If you want the fruits you need the roots the author Neil Doig disagrees with this position. What makes us human is that we can make a decision using our rational choice. We can think and we can make a decision to act to achieve what we choose.

Humans can actively impact their environment.

We can think, we can breath and we can grow.

We become what we think about most of the time. When we have a growth mindset of constant improvement, we can achieve more than previously believed. That we believe we can evolve or get better by forging a path every day, that gets us closer to our purpose or our essence of who we are and all that we can be.

Capacity (or how much we think we can achieve) is a state of mind, when you believe you can do more, your mind thinks creatively and shows you the way. Look at things not as they are, but as they could be. Visualisation adds value to everything. Good money mindset visualises what can be done in the future and is not stuck in the present or scared of the past.

There are two ways of looking at the world, a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. A fixed mindset, or limited point of view, means that we are born the way we are and there is no way of changing. A growth mindset describes the opposite, a mindset within which we can learn, grow and change. It is an attitude of nothing resting, everything moving everything vibrating and everything being in motion. Things can be better; we can improve, and we can contribute to other’s growth. Through experience and education, we can learn new things and improve our lives.

The rules have changed. With these different times, we need different minds. These are chaotic and turbulent times. There is a rhyme to both reason and unreason. There is always a rhythm. Like a tide, everything flows in and out, there is sinking and arising. Everything changes and nothing remains still. Just like the flowing river you can’t step into that same river twice, it will be a different river and you will be a different person. With all life, things are born, grow and then die, only to be reborn.

We cannot control the events in our lives, but we can control what those events mean. We can choose where to focus our thoughts. What we think we become. To tame the wild beast that is our subconscious mind, the ancient survival autopilot fight or flight mode, that is caused by fear and stress. Take control of your thoughts no matter what. Like a rider who must tame the horse, whose back they sit upon. Working together with the animal that sleeps within you can create something more powerful than you could dream possible. Working together with nature, to become interdependent with nature rather than independent from nature.

Descartes thought that the mind and body were separate. ‘I am he said, ‘only a thinking thing, that is a mind, intellect or reason.’

However, we are more than that, we have a mind, a heart and we can breathe. We take a breath of air only because of the presence of trees in the world. We are interconnected with the rest of the world

The mind and body is not separate but a connected whole. All is one and one is all. I can think, I can breathe and I can grow.

Everything is becoming and changing. Nothing is permanent but change. We are all connected to everything else. Nothing stands still, we are born, grow and then die.

‘I can think, I can breathe, I can grow’

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesis_(biology)

Can a case be made for Eliminativism? By Andrew Peasgood

https://www.oxfordphilsoc.org/Documents/StudentPrize/2020_Mhc.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/

https://hilary2020.conted.ox.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=31

Philosophy of Mind Classical and contemporary readings

David Chalmers

Patricia Churchland, What is eliminative materialism?