Behaviourism Flashcards
What is materialism ?
The idea that the mind is not ontologically distinct from the physical
What is logical/analytic behaviourism ?
All statements about mental states can be analytically reduced without loss of any meaning, to statements about behaviour.
How can arguments for behaviourism get around other arguments against dualism ?
2 things
1 solves the problem of other minds which becomes meaningless when considering the language used for mental states which cannot be verified, so is therefore meaningless
2 overcomes the problem of interaction as the mind is not a distinct substance myseteriously linked to the body, so there is no causal interaction to account for
How is behaviourism linked to logical positivism ?
Logical positivist Hempel articulates that as we can test the meaning of the words which we use to describe behaviour we can talk meaningfully about minds if we show that our claims can be reducible to behaviour. This is because if we explain mental states in how people act physically in certain situations, we dispose of any non physical mental talk
Wittgenstein - logical positivist - verifiable/ falsifiable = meaning
Who is the main thinker for hard behaviourism
Carl Hempel
What is hard behaviourism ?
Hard behaviourism articulates that every mental state can be reduced to physical behaviour
For example , if Paul had a toothache, this would translate as Paul weeping, maybe holding his mouth and saying he has a tooth ache
Who is the main thinker for soft behaviourism ?
Gilbert Ryle
What is soft behaviourism?
Sugar analogy ?
This is a similar approach to Hempel but differs in the way that he argues that mental states can be reduced to dispositions to behave in certain ways rather than just behaviour.
This means that people may not always behave the same way from similar stimuli, but will have the dispositions to do so
Rule compared the idea of sugar being soluble to mental states in his dispositions analysis
- it is a property of sugar to be soluble however you could not tell this by looking at sugar , it is only disposed to dissolve under certain conditions I.e. Being put in water
In the same way, I may be disposed to drink my favourite type of alcohol but I may not drink it if I was driving home.
Therefore in order to understand someone’s mental states , you need to have a detailed complex understanding of their dispositions
What is the problem of multiple realisability for hard behaviourism ?
Response ?
Further response
This criticism follows that expressions like “Jayda orders a cup of tea” do not only referring to behaviour but make implicit reference to human agency and an inward mental decision as Jayda in this instance, willed this action.
Therefore talk of agent centred moral decisions cannot be reduced to behaviour which is a problem for hard behaviourists who argue that all mental states can be reduced to behaviour
However a hard behaviourism may say that it’s is possible to eliminate talk of agency and only describe bodily movements of people I.e jayda opened her mouth and asked for tea
You cannot fully explain an action in terms of bodily movement because the same type of movement could imply a different bodily action
I.e. raising your arm could imply a dance move or wanting to ask a question.
Therefore hard behaviourism fails as you can’t fully explain the mind in terms of behaviour
Who made the criticism about super spartans?
Hilary Putnam
What is the criticism of super spartans on hard behaviourism ?
How can soft behaviourism get around this ?
Further criticism ?
Putnam presents the idea of super Spartans.
This is a conceivability argument asking you to conceive of people who have trained themselves not to change their behaviour at all when they feel pain for strong ideological reasons. (Monk being kicked in balls)
In this thought experiment there is a mental state but no behaviour showing that mental states cannot be reduced directly to behaviour. Therefore hard behaviourism fails
A soft behaviourist like Ryle would get around this criticism. This is because despite the super spartans not displaying behaviour, they still remain disposed to this behaviour. If the reasons for upholding showing no behaviour were taken away and a super spartans was on their own and stepping on a pin, they would be disposed to cry out in pain.
A further criticism of this may ask you to conceive of a super super spartans who still feels pain but is no longer disposed to pain behaviour
