Serdal Tümkaya

The Churchlands are notorious for their theory of eliminative materialism (EM). This theory has become associated with scientism and a possible death of philosophy. In this article, I will closely examine the most common accusations made against EM and try to give an overall assessment of them. The conclusion is that EM survives most of the criticisms levelled against it. For sure, there are many things to do to improve on the current form of the theory, but none of them seems to be unsurpassable. The charges of blind enthusiasm, reductionism, neuroscience exceptionalism and scientism originate from widespread misconceptions about the nature of actual science. Furthermore, the objection that EM is self-defeating is answered.

In this paper, I attempt to show that Thomas Nagel and Patricia Churchland, two seemingly very different philosophers of mind, in fact resemble each other quite closely in their severe critique of folk psychology. Due to folk psychology’s deep inadequacies, both Nagel and Churchland have suggested important revisions to it, which, strikingly, have led both of them to call their positions “revisionist”. This paper makes a significant contribution to the philosophy of mind literature, since almost all philosophers, including the Churchlands and Nagel themselves, understand the Churchlands and Nagel to espouse completely different philosophical views on these matters.

This paper aims to provide a rational reconstruction of the claim of eliminative materialism (EM), espoused by Paul and Patricia Churchland. It will identify and clarify alternative understandings of that view and assess the version that is the most plausible interpretation in the light of the Churchlands' writings and contemporary discussions. The result of the analysis is that eliminativism is best understood as a methodological thesis regarding the scope and depth of the possible revision of (scientific and folk) usage of FP terms and principles. The problem is important not only, and nor primarily, for exegetical purposes. EM functions in contemporary metaphysics of mind mainly as a point of negative reference: for this reason, it is important to carefully formulate the main claim of EM so that the theorists taking part in the debate know what they actually disagree with. The careful formulation provided by this paper could show other philosophers that their position is not, in fact, as far from EM as they might have thought.

Jim Slagle claims that eliminative materialism (EM) denies some of the mind’s self‐evident properties, such as intentionality, qualia and the view that beliefs are real or veridical. I, herein, will argue that what EM denies is actually the folk psychological notion of belief, not belief as such. The Churchlands construe propositional belief as merely one kind of representation in the larger representational scheme. The point here is not to deny belief, but to construe it as one of the, and possibly a very recent, sorts of representations that the brain uses, not the general or fundamental form thereof.

To a significant extent, mainstream Western philosophy is not empirically minded. The neurophilosophy of the Churchlands seems to exhibit the greatest divergence from this orientation by far. Extending and neuralizing Quine’s naturalism, the Churchlands have been known to challenge most assumptions and principles of contemporary mainstream analytic and even existing naturalistic philosophies. Even the philosophers who identify themselves as full-blown naturalists have an inexplicably negative attitude toward the Churchlands. For many philosophers of the mind, the Churchlands’ problem is not that they are philosophically wrong, but that they have no philosophical approach that could be wrong. They are nonphilosophers working at philosophy departments. Proper philosophy is not what they do or think they are doing. In this article, I argue to the contrary. The Churchlands would seem surprisingly moderate, and neither trivial nor near-trivial, when closely scrutinized.

In passing remarks, some commentators have noted that for Nagel, physicalism is true. It has even been argued that Nagel seeks to find the best path to follow to achieve future physicalism. I advance these observations by adding that for Nagel, we should discuss the consciousness problem not in terms of physical and mental issues but in terms of our desire to include consciousness in an objective/scientific account, and we can achieve this only by revising our self-conception, i.e., folk psychology, to develop a more detached view of experience. Through the project of objective phenomenology, Nagel aims to achieve some sort of objective, detached, and scientific explanation of the subjective nature of experience. This project seeks to make the truth of physicalism intelligible and consciousness more amenable to scientific study, potentially raising an even broader concept than the one physicalism originally proposes.

Thomas Nagel’ın “Hiçbir-Yerden Bakış Açısı” adlı kitabı çok alıntılanmış bir eserdir. Buradaki argümanlar sıklıkla bilincin nesnel-bilimsel bir açıklamasının yapılabilmesinin, en iyi ihtimalle, önündeki büyük ve yapısal sorunların dile getirilişi veya tümüyle imkansız olduğunu gösteren akıl yürütmeler olarak algılanır. Bu iki yanlış algıyı özetlememin ardından her ikisinin de neden hatalı olduğunu gösteriyorum. Bunu yaptıktan sonra her iki hatanın nedenlerini birden yaratan ortak bir neden daha olduğunu gösteriyorum. Bu nedenin Thomas Nagel’ın nesnel fenomenoloji önerisinin ya belirsiz veya saçma bulunarak bir kenara bırakılması ya da hepten reddedilmesi olduğunu savunuyorum. Böylelikle nesnel fenomenoloji projesinin özünde deneyimin öznel boyutunun, nesnel bir açıklamasının verilebilmesini sağlayabilmek için bilinci açıklamakta halihazırda kullandığımız zihinselci terimler setinde kavramsal ve kuramsal yenilenme yapılması yönünde bir çağrı olduğunu gösterebileceğimi düşünüyorum: Nesnel fenomenoloji, öznel fenomenin kavramsal yenilenme aracılığıyla özneler-arası ulaşılabilirliğini sağlama projesidir.

Thomas Nagel’ın “Yarasa Olmak Nasıl bir Şeydir” makalesi ve “Hiçbir Yerden Bakış” adlı kitabı aşırı derecede alıntılanmış iki eserdir. Buradaki argümanlar sıklıkla bilincin öznel boyutunun nesnel-bilimsel bir açıklamasının tümüyle yapılabilmesinin mümkün olmadığını gösteren, veya fizikalizmin sıkıntılarını dile getiren, veya düpedüz fizikalizmin bir reddi olarak algılanmış veya kullanılmışlardır. Bu çalışmamda her üç algının da, değişen oranlarda, hatalı olduğunu savunuyorum. Tezimi savunabilmek için, söylediğim üç ana yorumun, her birini özetliyor ve bunların her birinin neden yanlış olduğunu gösteriyorum. Böylelikle Nagel’ın ana projesi olan nesnel fenomenoloji önerisini öne çıkararak tüm bu hataların bu projenin genelde pek incelenmemesi veya incelendiğinde yanlış algılanmasına dayandığını ortaya koyuyorum. Bunları ikna edici şekilde yapmak için gösterdiğim gerekçeler nihayetinde Nagel’ın nesnel fenomenoloji projesi aracılığıyla “bilincin öznel karakterini nesnel bir şekilde açıklamaya çalıştığı” şeklindeki ikinci tezimi destekleyecektir.

Majority of the philosophers regard neurophilosophy as a highly marginal philosophical school of thought and reject it based on either principled reasons or alleged facts about the human brain. Principled objections typically include categorical rejections based on assumptions about the nature of philosophical problems and their solutions. Another objection is based on the extremely complex structure of the nervous systems, the idea that if neurophilosophical hypotheses are correct, it would mean the death of philosophy as a separate discipline and the perceived exclusion of human psychological, sociological, and historical existence and meaning by neurophilosophers. Here, I argue that these rejections are largely the result of either textual misreading of Churchlands’ publications or possibly of the farfetched interpretations by Churchlands’ critics stating that “wherever Churchlands do talk about necessary conditions of understanding the mind, these conditions should be read as expressions of the sufficient conditions.” Once I show that these various objections are mistaken, I propose an objection about a serious defect in neurophilosophical practice and offer a positive suggestion for removing the defect.