behaviourism Flashcards
what are the 2 types of behaviourism
-hard behaviourism
-soft behaviourism
who came up with hard behaviourism
Hemple
define hard behaviourism
-words used to describe the mind mean the same thing as words used to describe behaviours
-mind is nothing more than behaviours
-if you describe all behaviours in physical terms then you have described the mind
what does hard behaviourism conclude
all mental states are reduced down to mental behaviours
what’s an example of hard behaviourism
a person indicating they are in pain of some sort, like a footballer that has been fouled, or have they?
who came up with soft behaviourism
Ryle
define soft behaviourism
where propositions about mental states are propositions about behavioural dispositions
what’s an example of soft behaviourism
-if you have a tooth ache your don’t necessarily weep in pain, you may hide the fact you are suffering
-if your thirsty but don’t get yourself a drink
what does soft behaviourism conclude
analyses mental states in terms of behavioural dispositions, not just actual behaviours
define behavioural dispositions
how something will/is likely to behave in certain circumstances
what’s an example of behavioural dispositions
-a wine glass has a disposition to break when dropped on a hard surface
-the wine glass has this disposition even when it hasn’t been dropped yet and is in perfect condition
-someone with the mental state of pain will have a disposition to say ouch even if they don’t
what do these examples show about behavioural dispositions
behavioural dispositions are hypothetical behaviours as well as actual behaviours
what can be used to argue against behaviourism
Chalmer’s zombies
how does the zombie argument argue against behaviourism
-zombies have behaviours but no qualia
-zombie has all behavioural dispositions associated with pain but doesn’t have mental state of pain
what does the zombie argument conclude
-if zombies are possible, the behavioural disposition of pain is separate from the mental state
-if behavioural dispositions can be separate from mental state then behaviourism is false.
how does behaviourism respond to the zombie argument
-zombies are inconceivable
-mental states are behavioural dispositions and so mental states without behavioural dispositions are inconceivable
how does Ryle respond the the zombie argument
to think mental states are distinct from their associated behaviours is to make a category mistake
what’s an example of a category mistake
-someone wants to know what Oxford uni is
-so you show them the library, lecture theatres, teacher, students etc
-after the tour the person says ‘you’ve shown me all this but where is Oxford uni’
-there isn’t one thing you can point out and say ‘that is Oxford uni’
how does the Oxford uni example apply to behaviourism
-Ryle argues, showing someone the various behavioural dispositions associated with pain is to show them what the mental state of pain is.
-there is no single thing you can point to and say ‘that is pain’.
-concludes it it a category mistake to do so
how can you respond to Ryle’s Oxford uni example
Super Spartans
who came up with the idea of super spartans
Hilary putnam
define super spartans
people who completely suppress any outward demonstration of pain
how do super spartan’s show behaviourism is false
-they are an example of mental pain without associated behavioural dispositions and therefore seperate
-therefore behaviourism is false
what do super spartans conclude
p1-bahaviousism says to be in pain is to have a disposition to behave in certain ways
p2-super spartans can be in pain but not have a disposition to behave in those ways
p3-so, pain is not the same as behavioural dispositions
c-so behaviourism is false
define knowledge of my own mental states
-direct knowledge
define knowledge of someone else’s mental state
-indirect knowledge
-we have to infer how they are feeling from their behaviour
what’s an example of self knowledge and knowledge of others
if I’m in pain there is no way I could be mistakes however if I see someone scream I may thing they are in pain but they could be acting
what does this example show about behaviourism
p1-bahaviourism seems to rule out any asymmetry between self knowledge and knowledge of other people’s mental states
p2-there clearly is asymmetry between self knowledge and knowledge of others mental states
c-so behaviourism must be false
how does Ryle respond to the argument of self knowledge and knowledge of others
-self knowledge and knowledge of others mental states are the same thing
-we acquire this knowledge the same ways, paying attention
-asymmetry is an illusion from having more info about self knowledge than knowledge of others
what’s an example that asymmetry is an illusion
-internal speech and external speech are the same external behaviour
-the fact one is private and one it external isn’t important
-both the same behaviour
what does asymmetry being an illusion conclude
-there is no difference between self knowledge and knowledge of others
-you know what someone is thinking by paying attention to what they say, you know what you are thinking by paying attention
what responds to asymmetry is an illusion
qualia
what does qualia argue
-no amount of knowledge of a persons behaviour and behavioural dispositions gives you knowledge of their qualia
-so, there will always be asymmetry between self and other knowledge
mental states are nothing more than behavioural dispositions
p1-intro
-behaviourism is wrong
-define key terms
p2-argument 1
-zombies
p3-response 1
-category mistake (Ryle)
p4-response 2
-super spartans
p5-argument 2
-asymmetry between self and others knowledge
p6-response 3
-asymmetry is an illusion (Ryle)
p7-response 4
-qualia
p8-conclusion
-mental states are not the same as behavioural dispositions.
who responds to Ryle’s category mistake
Hilary Putnam
what is Hilary Putnams argument
super spartans
