The “causal theory” of mind as defended by Lewis and Armstrong aims to explain the causal relationship between the mental representation of certain things and the behavior of people or other forms of physical realization in the external world. world. In particular, Armstrong succeeded in resolving many of the logical and philosophical problems encountered by behaviorists who attempted to present mental and behavioral aspects as inseparable from each other. He demonstrated that all mental concepts can be formulated a priori. Then, empirical information about the physical manifestation can be added to explain the effects of prior mental processes. Thus, the input-output model can be reconstructed into functional properties by indicating the logical distinction between mental causes and behavioral effects (Armstrong, 1970). This analysis is developed in more detail by Lewis in his account of “mad and Martian pain”. The madman case refers to the situation in which a common stimulus (which causes pain in all other members of the population) does not cause pain in him. However, Lewis demonstrates that a madman can still suffer, but only when a different factor (abnormal to other people) is the cause. Alternatively, a Martian may also feel pain, but its physical realization may be very different from others (Lewis, 1983). Thus, the same causes and mental reactions as those observed in humans lead to very different physical reactions. However, further analysis, according to Lewis, allows one to determine that it is pain by examining the reactions of other Martians belonging to the same group. Overall, it seems that Lewis is largely wrong to assume that the different requirements of a theory of mind can be coherently integrated. The reason is that its analysis leads to an implicit transformation from mental causes and behavioral effects on an individual basis to certain population generalizations that do not lead to well-supported conclusions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay At the outset, it is reasonable to point out several strong points of Lewis's argument in his analysis of human behavior as well as the functions performed by the examples of "crazy, Martian pain." First, he is correct in explaining human (and potentially nonhuman) diversity in the experience of pain and other behavioral responses. He asserts that people's assessments of the mental states of others are based largely on the observed similarities and differences between their reactions and those of others. If a person shows a very different reaction to a standard stimulus, he or she may be considered crazy. Additionally, if the deviation from standard or typical behaviors is considerable, this assessment may be even stronger. In other words, the group tends to manifest a negative attitude towards members whose functionalism and behavioral representations are different from those expressed by the majority. Second, Lewis rightly explains that such serious differences do not mean that these people cannot be analyzed or that their behavior as a whole is irrational (Lewis, 1983). The ultimate solution is that pain or other reactions can still be activated, but with the help of other factors. Furthermore, he even assumes the potential reactions shown by Martians when they feel pain. Lewis states that at first, people mightbe unable to correctly interpret the Martians' feelings and perceptions, as their physical manifestations of pain might be very different from those expected by humans. However, he suggests an approach to use in this regard. It is possible to consider the behavior and responses of other Martians and determine the cause-and-effect relationship existing between certain external causes (inputs), mental processes and behavioral manifestations (outputs). Although this may seem very different from the process observed in humans, understanding the causal process may allow one to adequately understand Martians even without having a similar mental or physical experience. While the integration of a priori and a posteriori statements can be useful in evaluating the behavior and experience of other people (and even Martians), there is a central problem of evaluating pain reactions and other behavioral manifestations. from the patterns and behavior of the majority of a specific population. Although it may be practical, from an empirical point of view, to consider the reactions of other humans or Martians, this leads to incorrect and unfounded philosophical conclusions. In particular, Lewis claims that the single mad Martian cannot suffer because he is meant to represent a single mental state. However, this seems incorrect for the following reasons. First, while examining the behavioral responses of the Martians, Lewis continues to rely on "our" (i.e., human) standards of mental processes and behavior (as he believes these are " our concept") (Lewis, 1983). However, insanity assumes a significant deviation from the norms of behavior expressed by the behavior of other members of the same group. Therefore, Lewis should use Martians' norms of pain expression rather than humans' while analyzing the reaction and responses of a mad Martian. If proper Martian standards are applied, then it can be proven that a mad Martian can exist in the same way as a mad human (although their behavior will be different both in relation to their respectful groups and among themselves). Second, Lewis believes that a mad Martian will be characterized by a hidden state that is not mental (Lewis, 1983). This seems incorrect because the other Martians are clearly presented as having some form of mental state (although it is different from that of humans). This implies that a mad Martian cannot demonstrate non-mental reactions. It will necessarily be mental, but the causes of the physical reactions will be different from those of other Martians. Therefore, further investigation into the differences between a mad Martian and other Martians could lead to better-supported conclusions. Another problem observed in Lewis's analysis results from the absolutization of the comparative approach used when studying the mental processes and physical manifestations of people or others. Martians. He seems to believe that comparison with other members of the same group is the only reliable criterion to use in assessing "insanity" as well as in making other implications about observed mental or physical characteristics. In order to demonstrate the inaccuracy of this vision, it is possible to imagine a Being X different from both humans and Martians. Additionally, it is unique in the sense that no other known being of the same kind exists. In this case, applying Lewis's traditional approach would not allow reliable conclusions or implications to be drawn about Being X. The reason is that there is no possibility of comparing it to other other similar beings and draw conclusions about their mental processes. It is plausible that.