A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 2Harlington School · Philosophy · Metaphysics of Mind

The map: is the mind nothing but behaviour or the brain?

Kind one: the mind is BEHAVIOUR. Kind two: the mind is the BRAIN. Each one meets a case that does not fit.

The
big
question

If everything that exists is physical, what is the mind — a pattern of behaviour, a state of the brain, or something we should stop believing in?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The physicalist line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

KEEP the mind words · the mind is real, and it is physicalDROP the mind words · beliefs and wants do not exist

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

This lesson is the map. Behaviourism, type identity, the problems they share and eliminativism are tested one by one in the next four lessons. Then functionalism, in Unit 4.

◀ Refer back · Interaction and epiphenomenalism
How could a non-physical mind cause anything in a physical body?

Last unit: dualism could not say how a non-physical mind moves the body. Physicalism removes the problem: the mind is part of the physical world.

Retrieve: Predict: which is easier for a physicalist to explain — that pain makes you wince, or what pain FEELS like?
The big idea

Going from left to right, each theory keeps less of our everyday picture of the mind. Behaviourism keeps the words but changes what they mean. Type identity keeps the things but says they are brain states. Eliminativism drops them. In the essay, decide how far along the line you will go.

Look ahead · Philosophical behaviourism: Hempel and Ryle ▶
Is talk about the mind really just talk about behaviour?

Next lesson: behaviourism up close — Hempel's hard version and Ryle's soft version — before we test them against today's super-spartans.

Prime: Predict: can 'my friend is in pain' mean the same as a list of things my friend does, or would do?
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track A · Autumn 2 (W8–9, W13–14). See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 8

The map: is the mind nothing but behaviour or the brain?

Physicalism and reduction; behaviourism, type identity and eliminativism; the issues they share, setting up functionalism.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 8

Philosophical behaviourism: Hempel and Ryle

The motivation; Hempel's hard behaviourism and test sentences; Ryle's dispositions and inference tickets; the category mistake.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 9

Issues facing philosophical behaviourism

Introspection and the asymmetry of self-knowledge; perfect actors and super-spartans; circularity and multiple realisability; mental causation.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 13

Mind–brain type identity theory and its issues

Place and Smart; a posteriori identity and Ockham's razor; meaning and location objections; dualist arguments and intentionality; multiple realisability.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 14

Eliminative materialism: the Churchlands

Folk psychology as a theory and its failures; certainty from introspection; predictive success; the self-refutation objection.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four views of physicalism, side by side

Three ways to make the mind physical What they deny is dualism. The mind is NOT a separate thing, and it has no extra non-physical properties. But then physicalists must say what pain, or a belief, really IS — in physical terms. This lesson teaches two kinds of answer. Kind one: the mind is BEHAVIOUR — mind words MEAN what you do (behaviourism). Kind two: the mind is the BRAIN — pain IS a brain state (type identity). A third view says: drop the mind words altogether (eliminativism).

Kind one

Philosophical behaviourism

Mind words MEAN behaviour: what you do, or would do. But a pain with no behaviour at all breaks it.
1Mind words MEAN behaviour. 'She is in pain' is a short way of talking about what she does, or would do.
2Hard version (Hempel): every mind sentence can be turned into sentences you can check — crying, a bad tooth, nerve signals.
3Soft version (Ryle): mind words name dispositions. 'Thirsty' means 'would drink if…', as 'brittle' means 'would break if hit'.
4No ghost inside. Ryle calls Descartes' picture 'the ghost in the machine' — a mistake about how mind words work.
Strength It gets rid of two dualist problems at once. We can SEE other people's behaviour, so we know they have minds. And there is no ghost that has to push the body.
Weakness Pain and behaviour can come apart. The super-spartan feels pain with no behaviour; a perfect actor shows the behaviour with no pain. So pain cannot MEAN behaviour.
Kind two

Mind–brain type identity theory

The mind IS the brain: each kind of mental state is one kind of brain state. But an octopus in pain has the wrong kind of brain.
1Each kind of mental state IS one kind of brain state. Pain IS, say, C-fibres firing — in every person, every time.
2'Pain' and 'C-fibres firing' mean different things but pick out one thing — like 'morning star' and 'evening star' (both Venus).
3So it is found by science, not by studying words. It is like finding out that water is H2O, or lightning is electricity.
4Keep it simple (Ockham's razor): if the brain explains everything, we need nothing extra. Smart calls extras 'nomological danglers'.
Strength It fits what brain scans show: each kind of thinking goes with its own brain area. It lets pain CAUSE wincing. And it is simpler than dualism — no extra stuff.
Weakness Pain could be made in very different brains — an octopus, an alien. If pain IS one human brain state, they cannot feel pain. That seems unfair, and wrong.
Both kinds

Issues every physicalism must face

Both kinds tie the mind to one physical thing, and the mind keeps slipping free. Zombies, aboutness and self-knowledge press on every version.
1Both kinds tie each mental state to ONE physical thing. A case where the mind turns up without that thing breaks the tie.
2Dualist arguments: if a zombie is possible, or the colour scientist learns something new, physics leaves out what experience FEELS like.
3Intentionality: thoughts are ABOUT things, even things that do not exist, like unicorns. How can cells firing be about anything?
4Self-knowledge: I know my own pain at once. I do not watch my behaviour or scan my brain to find it.
Strength It shows the debate moving forward. Each theory is changed to meet a clear objection: from behaviour, to the brain, to what the brain DOES.
Weakness If what pain FEELS like really escapes every physical story, no new physicalist theory will help. Then the dualist wins.
The challenge

Eliminative materialism

Beliefs and wants are words from a false theory. Brain science will not explain them — it will drop them.
1Folk psychology is a theory: we explain and predict people by their beliefs and wants. Any theory can be false.
2It has hardly changed since the Ancient Greeks. It cannot explain sleep, memory, learning or mental illness.
3It does not fit with brain science, just as the old idea of 'bad air' did not fit with the science of germs.
4So beliefs and wants, as we think of them, do not exist. Brain science will describe us in its own words.
Strength It takes seriously that our mind words might be a theory — and theories can be wrong. It does not need a neat brain match for every everyday mind word.
Weakness It seems to defeat itself. To argue that there are no beliefs, you must BELIEVE it — and want other people to believe it too.
04

Six cases: reduce, identify or eliminate?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the super-spartan next to the octopus. In both, the mind is there. Say what is DIFFERENT: which box is crossed in each? Why can neither theory deal with the other's case?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the super-spartan. Behaviourism needs you to say: 'she is not in pain'. Could a behaviourist reply that she WOULD wince, somewhere, somehow? Does that save the theory?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Smart says: keep it simple — the mind is the brain. The octopus says: pain is not one brain state. Which matters more: a simple theory, or one that lets the octopus feel pain?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Go through the six cases. For each say: is it about MEANING (behaviour), about what a thing IS (brain), or about DROPPING a word? Then say the rule you have found.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is physicalism?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. The view that everything that exists is physical
  2. So mental states are physical, or fixed by (supervene on) physical facts — no non-physical substances or properties.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline eliminative materialism.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Folk psychology is a theory
  2. It is stagnant and fails to integrate with neuroscience
  3. So it is false
  4. So its posits (beliefs, desires) do not exist and will be replaced.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain the difference between an analytic reduction and an ontological reduction of the mind.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. Analytic: mental terms MEAN behavioural terms (behaviourism)
  2. Ontological: mental states ARE brain states, discovered a posteriori though the terms differ in meaning (identity theory).
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain mind–brain type identity theory and the issue of multiple realisability.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. Place/Smart: mental types = brain types, a posteriori like water/H2O
  2. Putnam: octopuses or aliens could feel pain with different brains
  3. So pain is not one brain-state type.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is physicalism true?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. Physicalism and supervenience
  3. Behaviourism and its issues
  4. Type identity and multiple realisability
  5. Eliminativism
  6. Dualist arguments
  7. Judgement.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Every theory in this unit is physicalist, yet each faces a different lead objection. Predict which theory you expect to survive best by the end of the unit, and why.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Metaphysics of Mind booklets runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Metaphysics of Mind booklets — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Metaphysics of Mind booklets is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan today's Q05 — thesis, physicalism, behaviourism, type identity, eliminativism, dualist replies, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is telling the theory clearly, and the case that breaks it. AO2 is asking: can the theory reply, and does the reply work? Never just say 'so it fails' — show why.
09

Watch

Physicalism (A level) — watch for physicalism for A level — Fliggosophy, 34:54

▶Physicalism (A level) · 34 min
Watch for: physicalism for A level — Fliggosophy, 34:54↗▶What is physicalism? · 25 min
Watch for: what physicalism claims — Humanities Southampton, 25:38↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say what physicalism claims, in one sentence.
  2. Say why the super-spartan breaks behaviourism.
  3. Say why the octopus breaks type identity.

Challenge

Argue: If you had to defend ONE physicalist theory in an essay, which would you pick — and which case would worry you most?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is telling the theory clearly, and the case that breaks it. AO2 is asking: can the theory reply, and does the reply work? Never just say 'so it fails' — show why.