behaviourism

Question 1

define hard behaviourism (Carl Hempel)

Answer 1

all propositions about mental states can be analytically reduced to (WITHOUT LOSS OF MEANING) to propositions about behaviours and bodily states using the language of physics

Question 2

define soft behaviourism (Gilbert Ryle)

Answer 2

propositions about mental states are propositions about behavioural dispositions

Question 3

define behavioural disposition

Answer 3

physical state that disposes you to act in certain ways

Question 4

how does Gilbert Ryle argue for behaviourism?

Answer 4

Arguments against dualism

Category mistakes

Question 5

Explain how Ryle uses arguments against dualism to prove behaviourism

Answer 5

Problem of other minds
Problem of causation (Elisabeth of Bohemia)

If dualism is true, mental concepts would be impossible to use as we could never talk about them and explain them unless through behaviours

Question 6

explain Ryle’s ‘category mistake’ argument against dualism

Answer 6

thinking mental states are distinct from their behaviours is a CATEGORY MISTAKE as it confuses one type of concept with another

e.g. if you visit Oxford and get shown the library, lecture theatres and colleges but then ask “where is the university?” it’s a category mistake. If you are shown all the different behaviours that explain pain then ask “but where is the pain?” it’s a category mistake

Question 7

name 5 problems for behaviourism

Answer 7

1. asymmetry between self and other knowledge
2. super Spartans
3. zombies
4. multiple realisability
5. circularity

Question 8

Explain the asymmetry between self and other knowledge problem for behaviourism

Answer 8

1. to know other’s mental states i must observe their behaviour
2. to know my mental states i merely experience them directly without having to observe their behaviours
3. behaviourism seems to rule out any asymmetry between self knowledge and knowledge of other’s mental states
4. but there is a clear asymmetry between the two, so behaviourism is false

Question 9

possible response to the asymmetry problem for behaviourism

Answer 9

Ryle: the apparent asymmetry is an illusion due to having far more evidence for self knowledge than knowledge of others’ mental states

Question 10

explain the super Spartans problem for behaviourism (Hilary Putnam)

Answer 10

Hilary Putnam: imagine a community of people who completely suppress any outward demonstration of pain even when feeling the worst pain. No behaviours associated with pain. BUT they still feel pain internally, so pain must be something OTHER than a set of behaviours

So, behaviourism is false as it’s possible to have the mental state without the behavioural disposition

Question 11

possible responses to PUtnam’s super Spartans argument against behaviourism

Answer 11

1. Ryle: there are still behavioural DISPOSITIONS (likelihoods) associated with pain even though there are exceptions to this such as the super Spartans
2. They will still have some behaviours associated with pain e.g. other bodily processes slowing down to conserve energy to process and heal the pain
3. Without any sort of outward display it would be impossible to form the concept of pain. Without the concept of pain it is impossible to distinguish the behaviour they were supposed to be suppressing in the first place. SO Putnam’s example is incoherent

Question 12

explain the multiple realisability argument against behaviourism

Answer 12

the same mental state can be realised through multiple different behaviours due to other mental states which can also be realised through multiple different behaviours… this can go on forever and overcomplicates mental states

crying = happiness, sadness, anger etc

Question 13

explain the problem of circularity against behaviourism

Answer 13

the theory is circular. To explain behaviours we use mental states, which according to mental states are explained by behaviours.

Question 14

25 marker assess behaviourism

Answer 14

behaviourism fails due to asymmetry, circularity and super spartans. ryle is better at responding but still fails as identity theory is more successful.

1. solves problem of interaction
   — but asymmetry
   — ryle solves this (asymmetry = illusion due to more evidence of our own mental states)
   — but if beh was true then we wouldn’t have more evidence because we view others behs all the time
   Doesn’t 100% disprove beh but weakens it
2. solves ‘mysterious’ nature of dualism
   — but doesn’t account for multiple realisability
   — Ryle says dispositions solve this
   — but even soft behaviourism still faces the issue of circularity:
   Proves beh to be a hollow theory with no real explanatory power
3. solves problem of other minds
   — but super spartans
   — ryle says they repress behaviours but still have dispositions
   — but super-super spartans who repress dispositions
   — ryle says you can’t get rid of dispositions
   — so dispositions can explain this, but still fails bc problem of circularity discussed above
   — id theory explains mental state without problem of circularity