P.S. Re Paul Churchland and eliminativism.

[Ken Hanly]

I wish I could see Stich's later book but what I have at hand are a very few
reference works, the backs of cereal boxes in English and French, and the
Internet. But I am not surprised he has changed his mind because of the
logical difficulties of trying to do away with the concepts of folk
psychology, as pointed out in my earlier post. However, Justin is right that
he wrote an earlier article that is really a classic statement of the
elminativist position. I read the article carefully twice, just to make sure
he really said what he seemed to be saying. Many philosophers do change their
mind. Russell was all over the place on ethical issues and others as well,
and we seem to have a Pre-Rawls Rawls, a Rawls Rawls , and a post-Rawls
Rawls. And of course Nozick seems to have changed his views on human nature.
In his later works he is far from the radical individualism of his classic
libertarian rightings.

    It may very well be that Paul Churchland has changed his position as
well. I read a short review of his most recent book. Among other things he
holds that there is most likely a detectable difference between the neural
networks in criminal brains and in those of non-criminals. That seems to be a
rather provocative statement. The reviewer does not mention whether
CHurchland presents any empirical evidence to support his claim. Some
criminal activity of course could be the result of brain damage but to
suggest that criminals on the whole have different neural networks is another
matter. Is the cure for criminality some updated version of electroshock?

   Cheers, Ken Hanly

Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:


> I agree that Stich is an
> eliminativist. I was trying to recall his name but couldnt which is why I
> went into reference sources.
>
> ========
> Actually, he seems to be having some doubts.  See his "Decontructing the
> Mind" from '96, Oxford P.
>
> Ian