David M. Armstrong-Mental States
...orces break or shatter easily¡¯ (Pg. 326) He goes on to say that ¡® brittleness is not to be conceived of as a cause for the breakage or even, more vaguely, a factor in bringing about the breaking. Brittleness is just the fact that things of that sort break easily¡¯ (Pg. 326) He is stating that brittleness is a structural property at a molecular level and that dispositions are inner state of things. Therefore ¡®a disposition to behave is simply a tendency or liability of a person to behave in a certain way under certain circumstances¡¯ (Pg. 326) It has been established that a mental state is a state apt for bringing about a certain sort of behavior and that he considers dispositions as inner states within us that cause behavior. He used driving to exemplify that even in an automatic state one perceives and mental processes still occur. Even though one has been driving, stopped at red lights and turned at corners one could be unaware of his own actions. All these behavior could be carried out without having one to realize his own actions. In the automatic state one just lacks the awareness of his own mental states. This reiterates his view that mental states are inner states that cause behavior and the automatic state is merely lacking mental awareness. This shows mental states can be identified with ¡®purely physical states of the central nervous system¡¯. (Pg. 327) For Armstrong, to be a mental state is to be an internal state serving as a causal intermediary between sensory inputs and physical outputs on one hand, and causing behavior and other mental states as effect on the other. In other words, mental states are defined partially in reference to other mental states. Armstrong speaks of the complex and interlocking set of causal factors. The rejection his view is that dispositions do not cause behavior and that mental states are in some sense a kind of behavior. There is no internal property that explains what happens. Armstrong would then argue that dispositions are causal factors. He considers the case for the brittleness of glass. He states that ¡®a certain molecular constitution of glass which constitutes its brittleness is actually responsible for the fact that, when the glass is struck, it breaks.¡¯(Pg. 328) As for human beings, Armstrong refused to identify the mind with behavior. He suggests that ¡®the mind is rather that which stands behind and brings about our complex behavior¡¯(Pg.328) and that dispositions ¡®are really states that underlie behavior, and under suitable circumstances, bring about behavior.¡¯(Pg. 328) The question of identifying mental states is raised when a certain behavior under a certain circumstance is explained. For human beings, it is possible for a mental state to be occurring but not exhibit any relative behavior. Armstrong calls it ¡®selective behavior towards your environment¡¯. One can alter their behavior according to the presence and absence of the environment. For example, a person could be aggravated but due to the environment he was in he had to suppress his anger. Although the person felt angered mentally, he may not show signs of angered behavior externally as he chose to suppress it. This behavior is caused by the mental state which is affected by each individual¡¯s perception. Armstrong¡¯s describes perception as an internal state of a creature that tends to produce behavior that is sensitive to features of its environment. Perceptual states are also physico-chemical state that produces behavior to the environment. So far it may seem that...