Private Language Argument, Logical Behaviourism & Identity Theory - Philosophy of Mind II

[@PhilosophyVibe]

This script is part of... The Philosophy of Mind eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe11

[@philipparker5291]

Great work! It's been a while since I studied philosophy, and these videos really make me want to rediscover all of its wonders. I would love to see a video comparing the younger with the older Wittgenstein. Pretty please?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you glad you liked the video. A video on Wittgenstein is definitely in the pipeline.

[@kingnevermore25]

Absolutely love your channel. Keep doing a great job! Btw can you do a video on Kants transcendental idealism?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much. And yes Kant's transcendental idealism is on the list!

[@avontaywilliams]

Excellent video! I would love to see a video discussing Rawls theory of justice and the original position and or Habermas’ approach to communicate action

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much. Great suggestions, I will add them to the list, we have a video on Justice penciled in, it is a wide topic though so either we cover Rawls in this or we look at doing a dedicated video on Rawls' theory of justice.

[@Blindysheep]

These videos helped me so much at uni thanks

[@PhilosophyVibe]

So glad to hear these videos helped :)

[@Nergal_Slayer]

8:32 It is the perception, the interaction of the brain and the outside world through our senses. That way, information is physically present in the brain.

[@yiliu2183]

The channel is great!! Really inspiring. But I have 2 questions. Q1: the video talks about Gilbert Ryle, a logical behaviourist that believes there is no mental state. What about other logical behaviourist like Wittgenstein or Carl Hempel? They believed that mental state exists. Q2: in the last part, Join and John talk about identity problems from the topic of logical behaviourism, what about the difference between behaviourism and physicalism? (plz ignore my poor English gramma)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

These are all excellent points. We only intended to give a brief overview of the topics, of course there is a lot we have missed or couldn't fit in.

[@yiliu2183]

​@@PhilosophyVibe Thanks for your response! I truly learn a lot from the whole video! I will expect more inspiring videos like this one.

[@rocio8851]

Very well explained

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

8:30 "How can a brain state be about something"? A brain state is about something in a way *perfectly* analogous to the way a painting of a pipe is about a pipe.

[@2tehnik]

doesn't the private language argument already assume that other beings either understand or don't understand? I mean, if everyone's a philosophy zombie except me, it's not like they'd ever understand what I mean by "pain"

[@youflyeverynight2222]

I don't think the private language argument is valid at all. Schizophrenics can have multiple personalities, each one having information the other one's may not. If I am the only mind, it's very logical to see the possibility of my mind interacting with other personalities in itself. Private language argument is assuming that information by the one mind relates to all the others. I think that's quite a narrow perspective.

[@juanmafe2956]

Caleb do you even know what schizophrenia is?

[@2tehnik]

@@juanmafe2956 yeah I guess they were referring to dissociative identity disorder.

[@shaunkerr8721]

We simply do not have the ability to point at the brain and say "that's where love is" yet. There are ways in predicting human behavior before hand by reading the brain prior to the body acting and the better we understand the way the brain works the more identity theory seems correct. If there is a part of the mind which is wholly independent of the physical nature of the brain, why is it bound to the brain or the body? Why can the mind not detach and float around freely? How does the mind fit into the realm of spacetime? If the mind is independent of the physical nature of the brain, can it form prior to the brain? If not, why does it require a physical start to its existence? If not, why, again, is it bound to a body? Saying identity theory is not absolute is factual but it does not mean that it confirms dualism in the least. It's like giving me Fernet and telling me to fig out the 127 ing in the bottle, will it not be what it is if I cannot fig out all the ing? Will it prove that it is not Fernet and is actually whisky bc I cannot validate all the ing which make up Fernet? I can list 73 of the ing, is that enough? Is it ever enough or is only perfection enough to extinguish the premise of Dualism?

[@gasteropodecertifie100glut6]

But how can you be so sure that the mind is bound to the brain ? Haven't you had experiences where your mind feels elsewhere ? As in a dream, or watching a film, etc. It's not moving in the physical world but it doesn't feel attached to the physical brain either at this particular moment, at least in your own experience. Someone watching you will not see you moving but it's because they can only physically perceive you. What if basing the study of the mind on external perception, and concluding that the mind is purely physical was only the consequence of that external perception being physical ? I think you're right about identity theory VS dualism, it doesn't have to be one or the other and maybe identity theory isn't complete yet

[@edmundburke8490]

Great channel guys. Im prob in more in line with the guy, who has the glasses and beard. But both brought up valuable arguments. 👓🤓👍

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed.

[@edmundburke8490]

@@PhilosophyVibe You welcome. I was just wandering, is their a renewed interest in dualism and its relationship to consciousness in recent times? Is the general consensus still however in support of monism. Thanks this would help me a lot. Thank you.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Hi Edmund This is a bit difficult to answer. I think there’s always been a strong place for Dualism in religious and spiritual beliefs as well within the philosophy of mind. But I am not sure about the general consensus. I would however say there has been a renewed interest in Idealism as simulation theory has gained more prominence.

[@edmundburke8490]

@@PhilosophyVibe thanks for prompt response. I was thinking the same re dualism in spiritual and philosophy of mind concepts. Idealism, is another fascinating idea in relation to simulations. Its beyond belief, why philosophy is not studied in schools, at least in my experience, when I was in school in the 80s. Thanks, I will continue to enjoy your channel.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

👍😀

[@neptasur]

Hylomorphism is a better answer: the soul/mind is the form of the body. It's the only position that doesn't suffer from intractable defects.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

"Hylomorphism : the doctrine that physical objects result from the combination of matter and form." - Dictionary Since 'form' is an abstract notion one can see the link to 'mind' which is also an abstract notion.

[@onyejievansmark315]

Helpful....thanks

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome :)

[@rickcoyote2361]

Thank you gentlemen. Jeez, what a rabbit-hole, eh?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Mind blowing!

[@vlr003]

Super clear, thanks!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome.

[@beefwellington2945]

Good stuff

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :)

[@OutsidersRo]

❤❤❤

[@Nergal_Slayer]

A private language coul exist. Other "people" using that language correctly could just be a projection made by my own mind, the only one to truly speak it.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

In multiple personality disorder (recently renamed 'dissociative identity disorder') one among a group of selfs may take control of the body but seems to me there is nothing to prevent a single body's separate selfs from enjoying a private conversation in a private language. How to explain the rise of such a language is extremely problematic since obviously all the selfs would learn the language of the culture in which the host body is embedded.

[@MaksProger]

As an actual solipsist, I'm unconvinced.

[@Adora3473]

That "nothing more" is so wrong. "the physical and nothing more", "nothing more than a cell", "nothing more than a brain circuit", "nothing more than a behaviour", ecc.. This says a lot about the lack of wonder and humility humans can have. We just say this because we are still opposing to an ignorant religious metaphysical way of looking at reality, and the result is just damage to science and philosophy.

[@Ffkslawlnkn]

'If there were other minds, i could not attach feelings to words.' Why would that be the case?

[@edmundburke8490]

Could you elaborate a bit more thanks.

[@DangitronepasVI9]

I see these faces in my nightmares

[@otakurocklee]

The private language argument makes no sense to me as a defeat of solipsism. Chatbots use language... do they have minds? The ability to use language does not necessarily entail imply the existence of a mind. Suppose all conscious beings died off except for one human being. The last person still has his language. He is the only mind in existence. Solipsism is true in that situation. And a private language exists.

[@dermalion6410]

Chatbot is programmed by someone smh 🤦🏽‍♂️ there are too many clowns in this world we need to get rid of including you.

[@mrepix8287]

A separate mind would have to create those very chatbots

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Language is the thing that makes one mind out of all of us.

[@someguy-fj1oz]

A chat bot would use language solely by its definition as it is purely computational. The chatboy would not understand what I mean when I said “I’m dead” in a joking manner, the chatbot would see this as the literal “I’m= referring to x, dead= biological definition of death”. Suppose the bot was programmed to understand jokes. It would still not be able to communicate, Langauge is not about the words but the message. If language is not private it likley gets its meaning from its use and not from exact definitions and computational language does

[@youflyeverynight2222]

The private language argument has so many assumptions attached to it, I do not think it is a logical argument at all.

[@btsbabieslove9710]

I’m actually interested to why you see that, is it too much to ask if you can elaborate? Your opinion seems interesting! Please do share!

[@youflyeverynight2222]

@@btsbabieslove9710 sure! First thing, schizophrenia exists in today's world, so does multiple personalities, both relate to your mind having two separate identities that can access different memories or even perceptions of the world. So, the "private language" theory can easily be dismounted by the recognition that your mind doesn't share information between your own person, and other people. So the private language doesn't prove anything, it's reasonable to think it's possible, but it's definitely not proof.

[@edmundburke8490]

Good point. It seems like mental illness are in some ways, separate fom the brain, insomuch as if another person has entered someone else's brain. I dont know, if that makes sense. But, the mind/brain problem is still very perplexing indeed.