Functionalism

1
Functionalism

• Matter, Design, and Intentionality

2
Reflecting on the history of neuroscience

• We know that the brain has a lot to do with the
  mind.
• Why is it so difficult to study it?
• History of neuroscience
• Problem How do you connect brain activity with
  behavior?
• Are there other approaches?

3
A clean methodology?

• Is there an alternative to trying to understand
  thought by looking at the brain?
• Can we theorize about whats going on inside the
  black box without looking directly at it?

4
Back to a problem

• Materialism appears to be too parochial
• It says that the mind is the brain.
• That rules out minds where there are no brains.
• But maybe something could think, without having a
  brain.

5
A Martian Story

• The story .
• The moral

6
Functionalism

• The mind is the internal system that takes
  characteristic input and produces characteristic
  output in systems to which we attribute
  intelligence.
• In human beings, the hardware of that internal
  system is the brain.
• In another type of intelligent agent, (e.g. the
  Martian) the hardware could be different.
• But the underlying functions are the same.

7
Functionalism continued

• In human beings, mental states are instantiated
  in the human brain.
• In Martians, mental states might be instantiated
  in the pudding-like substance inside the
  Martians toes.
• What are the inputs and what are the outputs?

8
Parochial concerns again

• Functionalism is not parochial.
• Is Functionalism too liberal?
• What thinks and what doesnt?
• Does my toaster think?
• Does this lectern?

9
Dennetts Functionalism

• Attempts to explain what an Intentional System
  is.
• Presents an argument for functionalism.
• Presents arguments against materialism and
  behaviorism.

10
Explanatory stances

• An explanatory stance is a way of explaining and
  predicting somethings behavior.
• Dennett introduces three stances.
• The Physical Stance
• The Design Stance
• The Intentional Stance
• Could there be other stances?

11
The Physical Stance

• Invoked to explain physical systems
• Look at the properties of the system.
• Example
• A limb breaks off a tree in a storm.

12
The Design Stance

• Designed systems are physical, but are designed.
• Ignore the physical properties.
• Or more properly Assume them.
• Appeal to the design to explain and predict.
• Example
• Adjusting the balance on stereo speakers.

13
The Intentional Stance

• Intentional Systems are physical and designed.
• Ignore the physical and design aspects.
• Treat as having intentional properties.
• Example
• Predicting your Professors behavior

14
When do not when should we take the intentional
stance?

• Explaining and predicting human behavior.
• Explaining and predicting our animals behavior.
• Explaining and predicting plant behavior.
• Explaining and predicting electricity.

15
When is the intentional stance appropriate? When
should we take it?

• When its the only way of predicting and
  explaining the systems behavior.
• This may rule out the plant, for example, as an
  intentional system.

16
Some real intentional systems

• Most humans.
• But not all May need to take the design stance
  toward someone with a severe head injury, for
  example.
• Some computers
• How to play chess against a computer.

17
Intentionality and Rationality

• The intentional stance involves attributing
  rationality to the system.
• Whats rationality?
• Ability to make the appropriate inferences from
  given information.
• Examples of rational behavior

18
Rationality and Language

• Intentional Systems have beliefs.
• Beliefs are expressed in terms of propositions.
• Propositions are elements of language.
• So Intentional Systems will have a language.

19
Could we dispense with the Intentional Strategy?

• Behaviorists say
• YES!
• What is Dennetts reply?
• Materialists say
• YES!
• What is Dennetts reply?

20
Levels of Explanation

• Is the hardware of the black box irrelevant?
• Does Dennett think we should ignore the brain?
• Intentional systems are also physical and
  designed systems.