According to Armstrong, what does it mean to provide a causal analysis of mental concepts and define mental states in terms of their causal role?

There is no need to use quotations; if you do quote from the text, please be sure to explain the ideas in your own words. Please do not quote handouts, or videos. each essay will be 300-500 words, but there is no strict length requirement. Please submit your responses as a double-spaced ————————————————————————————————— 1.)Smart points out that one possible objection to the mind-brain identity theory is that someone who knows nothing about the brain can know and talk about pains, sensations, toothaches, and after-images. Thus, when they report a sensation, they are not reporting a brain process. How does Place’s distinction between the “is” of definition and the “is” of composition help to address this potential objection? 2.)According to Armstrong, what does it mean to provide a causal analysis of mental concepts and define mental states in terms of their causal role? How does this allow functionalists to distinguish between (a) the mental state’s functional role and (b) what occupies/fills/realizes this role? How does this make functionalist metaphysics different from the metaphysics of the identity theory? 3.)One attractive feature of functionalism is that it characterizes mental states as “multiply realizable”. Explain what this means and why this often is viewed as an advantage of functionalism insofar as it avoids the ‘chauvinism’ of the mind-brain identity theory. Then, consider Ned Block’s claim that this potentially saddles functionalism with a different problem: liberalism. 4.)Please carefully explain John Searle’s “Chinese Room” objection to Strong AI/the computational theory of mind and his key distinction between syntax and semantics. Why might critics think Searle is guilty of what Ned Block calls ‘chauvinism’?