Philosophy of Mind 4.1 - Functionalism

In this video, I explain the basic ideas behind functionalism. I look at how functionalists face a circularity problem, and then explain the two main methods they have used to solve it: Turing Machines and Ramsification.
I will deal with objections to functionalism in the next video.
Re 22:53: plato.stanford.edu/entries/chu...

[@JMcomments]

Thank you so much for your series on philosophy of mind, it must of been a lot of work. I haven't been able to attend my philosophy lessons for personal reasons and I got really stuck on the mind topic, but you explain it so well that it makes functionalism seem so much easier. Thank you again!!😊

[@eshine3383]

Finally I understood what Turing machine is and its connection to philo of mind!!!

[@pareshhate2755]

You, sir, are amazing.

[@antirealist]

I took Philosophy of Mind with Georges Rey - Turing machines were definitely a focus of the class!

[@kristinwatkins9945]

Hello Kane B, I'm a level I undergraduate student in Philosophy and History and I've just stumbled upon your videos, cause I'm doing Philosophy of Mind and we're currently engaging with Functionalism. Your video has been great and helpful. The Turing Machine and Ramsey-Lewis Method did go over my head slightly but I'll be reading more on it to understand. I suppose this leads to my question; Did you only study philosophy or did you double major in biology, math, psychology? I've glanced through your videos and they are largely biological, psychological and logic based. I've never been encouraged to understand math and the sciences, aside from crude memorization, been more so humanistic in my studies. If you only did Philosophy, did you just read up on these things on your own or did you take some courses in them? I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer these because I don't simply wish to have a cursory memorized notion of these things, but an understanding. So I wonder what you've been through, and any tips you can give. Thanks.

[@KaneB]

+Kristin Watkins I've only "officially" studied philosophy, everything else is self-taught (though of course a philosophy course can include biology, logic etc depending on what you focus on). I don't know much mathematics though, I've only focused on formal logic because that comes up a lot in philosophy. . Basically, I just read through textbooks, making notes as I go, and doing any questions/exercises they give. For biology, I started with "Life" by Sadava et al for a broad overview, then worked through "Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma and "Genomes" by T.A. Brown (like any textbook they're pretty expensive if you buy the new editions, but an earlier edition will give you a perfectly fine grasp of the subject). If you can set aside some time each day and stick to it, even just half an hour, you'll learn a lot fairly quickly.

[@karachaffee3343]

I think that ever since DaVinci drew the Vitruvian Man, we have been hell bent to prove that humans are machines. And I see ever greater incentives to cast humans as machines such that humans can be used and discarded like machines.

[@hugoheyman1306]

Thank you, really appretiate it

[@aidanleather]

Amazing - thank u!

[@gillianellar3991]

THANK YOU

[@yourfutureself3392]

Very very interesting

[@maximilyen]

Very good

[@karachaffee3343]

You could build a robot that had sensors that would sense physical damage--and respond with yelling, wincing and nursing the damaged area. It does not follow that it would feel a thing.

[@YM-cw8so]

it also doesn not follow that you have a complete argument for why it would not feel as we humans do

[@CMVMic]

Why arent you a functionalist Kane?

[@fouad7514]

I strongly disagree with your statement that dogs cannot have beliefs, just delusions of demo-grandeur. We cannot know what occurs in the Minds of dogs or any other being for that matter. we have difficulty understanding each other and we are the same species and share the same form of communication. In fact this whole question in philo of mind concerning pain doesn't even take into consideration the fact that pain and pleasure overlap (say in the case of a masochist or angry emo teen) and I feel like they miss the point that the identification of a sensation is more than a function of the brain but also a way for a non physical thing (Mind- as called by presocratics which fail to make an appearance in this subject despite their relevance) to communicate with the physical. the whole point of it these thought exercises is to separate the body from the mind.

[@benjamingibson5602]

The big leap that I could not get behind was defining beliefs as exclusively linguistic. You can have non-linguistic expectations. The fact that we can post hoc rationalize our automatic responses does not mean that those responses were inherently linguistic. I agree that the preoccupation with the negative aspects of pain overly simplify the problem at hand. However I do not agree that the goal of these experiments is to prove dualism.

[@gingrich1000]

​@Oners82 Surely the argument that 'dogs cannot have linguistic beliefs' is entirely stating 'automatic responses are linguistic' as an objection to functionalism? The counter-argument would be to say that responses to stimuli such as the belief that nursing a wound will alleviate pain are unconscious reactions to qualia, and therefore that the initial objection to dog's having beliefs is irrelevant.

[@gingrich1000]

Oners82 I understand that, but couldn’t you argue that it is not belief, but simply an automatic response which has been post-rationalised to appear as a belief, therefore preserving the integrity of the Ramsey sentence?

[@gingrich1000]

@Oners82 But dogs do still lick their wounds, so the Ramsey sentence is still intact, as long as we find a word which fits better than 'belief', no?

[@fouad7514]

also what about nails across a chalk board? cause all of the states of pain but isnt really causing any tissue damage... i dont get the focus on pain in this school of thinking.

[@neoepicurean3772]

Who are you? Do you teach this stuff?