2nd Installment: Functionalsim

Psychofunctionalism goes beyond the limitations of core functionalism. It takes somewhat of a psychological approach. Methods used in psychology are used to discover more complex mental states than compared to Functionalism. The proper defined Thesis is “Certain psychological terms are defined by applying a certain logical technique to the terminology of some theory of experimental psychology.” This term has often been labelled or compared to Chauvinism. This is because the thesis denies mentality to certain creatures that clearly possess it. Psychofunctionalism specifically denies mentality to a creature of which the selected theory is false. For example it would distinguish mental states such as depression from sadness  even though the causes and effects are hard to uncover just by using common sense or intuition. And if there’s no scientific evidence then Psychofunctionalism will not characterize something such as hysteria. It’s strong chauvinistic qualities is why it isn’t a popular theory.

Analytic functionalism was brought about by David Lewis. He was a philosopher and professor at Princeton university. He contributed to many areas of philosophy such as language, probability, metaphysics, philosophical logic and aesthetics, and of course philosophy of mind. His position on Analytic functionalism was inspired by Gilbert Ryle’s Analytical Behaviorism. It took psychological predicates to express complex sets of behavioral dispositions. So in example,  if someone was hungry, they would accept food if it was offered to them. And they would be more likely to go to a restaurant than a bar. However Lewis’s view would identify that

hunger as an inner state that provides casual basis for these dispositions. This clears any use of psychological predicates in casual explanation. His view is someone went to a restaurant because of their hunger, and the hunger is what determined the decision between restaurant and bar. So this position can allow a paraplegic to claim they have pain even though they lack the behavioral disposition.

All in all functionalism is kind of centered about the dualism between mind and body. But personally I believe the whole  

ideology is extremely flawed, and a very narrow minded stance. Functionalists believe mind is independent of the body, but this couldn’t be more false. The mind would have no input without bodily function. How could it determine where it’s at, what surrounds it, what it feels without any sensory input from body parts? How would it sustain itself would consumption of the body? These are very alarming questions that crumble the foundation of Functionalism. It follows an almost childish level of simplicity. Now personally I can understand where some may come from with the concept of dualism. I think we have a brain and a mind. One takes care of the internal functions of the body while the other holds consciousness and works on its own merits. There is a bit of independence in that sense. But the two very much are dependent at the same time, they’re intertwined.

This was a very interesting topic to research because I believe it’s had an influence in media such as the question of whether machines will take over one day with their own intelligence and that very concept has been portrayed in film multiple times. This also coincidentally was briefly covered in our final quiz last week. Thanks for reading and hope everyone has a fulfilling summer.

Comments on posts: 

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/aldair-avalos-8.html?showComment=1525207913005#c3209498885205492770

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/05/philosophy-of-dark-souls-pt2.html?showComment=1525226252276#c3588152597092610720

1st Installment:

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2018/04/1st-installment-thesis-of-functionalism.html?showComment=1525208226855#c1646752046787222361