Reading Read Hempel The Logical Analysis of Psychology focus on 2024 Kim 7682 Historical Background The beginning of the 20 th century was the greatest time of intellectual advancement since Newton ID: 415277
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Behaviorism" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
BehaviorismSlide2
Reading
Read:
Hempel
“The Logical Analysis of Psychology” (focus on 20-24)
Kim: 76-82Slide3
Historical Background
The beginning of the 20
th
century was the greatest time of intellectual advancement since Newton.
Development of Einstein’s new physics
Invention of modern symbolic logic
Huge advancements in theoretical mathematicsSlide4
Historical Background
Amidst all of this achievement a group of philosophers, mathematicians, logicians and physicists called
the Vienna Circle
began to meet.Slide5
The Vienna CircleSlide6
The Vienna CircleSlide7
The Vienna Circle
Rudolf
Carnap
Kurt
Godel
Karl Popper
Otto
Neurath
Herbert
Feigl
Moritz
SchlickSlide8
Historical Background
They looked back at the history of philosophy and saw a bunch of logical errors, sloppiness, inconsistencies, and groundless speculation.
They believed that old philosophical questions should be either be re-interpreted in ways that allowed them to be
verifiable
, or be abandoned.Slide9
Historical Background
They advocated a radical empiricist viewpoint:
The meaning of a sentence is determined by its
verification conditions
.
If a sentence does not have testable verification conditions, it is nonsense.
So any scientific or philosophical theory must
at least in principle
be testable by empirical methods.Slide10
Historical Background
The Vienna Circle were hugely influential both in the scientific and philosophical communities.
At this time (and up until at least the ‘70’s) philosophy is dominated by philosophy of language and a radical empiricist epistemology.Slide11
Historical Background
It is in this context that a series of puzzles led researches in science and philosophy to adopt
behaviorism
.Slide12
The Problem of Other Minds
“But then if I look out the window and see men crossing the square, as I just happen to have done, I normally say that I see the men themselves…Yet do I see any more than hats or coats which could conceal automatons?”
-Descartes (4)Slide13
The Problem of Other Minds
If minds are immaterial objects, then the only mind we interact with directly is
our own.
How do we know anything about the state or existence of minds besides our own?Slide14
The Problem of Other Minds
You see someone wince and groan and infer they are in pain.
But for the dualist
pain
is a state of an immaterial soul.
It is possible for something to a
ct
like its in pain when it isn’t in pain, or doesn’t even have a mind!Slide15
The Problem of Other Minds
I see smoke on the horizon and conclude that there is a fire there.
The evidence makes my
conclusion
likely to be true
, so the inference is good.Slide16
The Problem of Other Minds
Intuitively our knowledge of other minds is like this.
I see Sarah wincing and groaning.
I know that when people act like that they are usually in pain.
Therefore I infer that she is feeling pain.Slide17
The Problem of Other Minds
I can make the smoke-fire inference because in past cases where I have observed smoke, there has been fire there.Slide18
The Problem of Other Minds
If dualism is true I cannot
even in principle
make these observations of other minds.
I can’t
even in principle
observe another’s mind directly.
I can’t deduce the existence of other minds.
I can
never
establish a correlation between pain and wincing and groaning on which to base an inference.
My
own
mental state/behavior correlations are just one case, and don’t support general inferences.Slide19
The Problem of Other Minds
Argument from Other Minds
If dualism is true, we can never have knowledge of other minds.
We do have knowledge of other minds.
Therefore, dualism is false.Slide20
Other Minds: Scientific Investigation
If dualism is true, no science of the mind is possible:
You can't observe mental states
You cannot establish correlations between mental states and observable states
You cannot formulate testable hypotheses about mental states.
You cannot confirm or falsify hypotheses about mental states.Slide21
Wittgenstein’s Beetle
The problem isn’t
just
epistemological. If dualism is true, it is hard to see how we can even
talk intelligibly
about mental states.Slide22
Wittgenstein’s Beetle
Suppose we all carried around boxes. A person can only look in their own box. Everyone calls what is in their box a “beetle.”
Would you have any idea what other people meant when they said “I have a beetle in my box”?Slide23
Wittgenstein’s Beetle
No!
You have no clue if what is in their box is like what is in yours, or if there is anything in their box at all!
There is no sense in which each of your words “beetle” mean the same thing.Slide24
Wittgenstein’s Beetle
The case is even worse for mental-state language.
We
could
in principle open the boxes and compare what is in them.
If dualism is true, you can never do anything like this for mental states.Slide25
Meaningful Language
Meaningful language requires the possibility of
shared reference
across speakers
.
We have to be able to converse about, refer to, designate the same things in order for our words to have the same meanings.Slide26
Meaningful Language
If dualism is true, mental states do not have this feature.
The only mental states I am ever acquainted with are my own, and the same goes for you.
We could never fix the contents of our mental state language if this is the case!Slide27
Meaningful Language
Thus, if mental-state talk is to be meaningful at all it had better be about publicly observable things.
What we most directly observe relating to the mental states of others is their
behavior
.Slide28
Reading
Read Putnam 37-44.
Start reading Chomsky’s “Review of Skinner.” Most important stuff is 50-53 and 59-62.Slide29
Category Mistakes
Ryle calls dualism “The Doctrine of the Ghost in the Machine.”
He thinks that all
the
problems
we discussed last time show
that the dualist is guilty of a
category mistake
.Slide30
Category Mistakes
A
category
mistake is when someone mistakes the
kind of thing
something is:
University Case
Battalion Case
Gloves CaseSlide31
Category Mistakes
According to Ryle, the dualist is guilty of the same sort of mistake.
They see all of this behavior and they think that the mental state is something
over and above
the collection of behavior.
The behavior is all the physical stuff, so whatever it is, the mental state has to be
non-physical
.Slide32
Category Mistakes
But this is just the same as looking for a pair of gloves after you have seen the left one and the right one!Slide33
Logical Behaviorism
Logical Behaviorism:
Mental-state sentences can be retranslated without loss of meaning into sentences containing only reference to behavior and behavioral dispositionsSlide34
Behaviorism
The behaviorist holds that there is nothing to mental states over and above
behavioral dispositions
:
Behaviors are physical events so no problem with interactionism
They are observable, so no other minds problem.
They are publicly accessible so they can ground meaningful discourse.
They are observable so you can study
them scientifically.Slide35
Behaviorism
Talking about
behavioral dispositions
allows the behaviorist to avoid some initial problems.
Lying
Actors
Concealing mental states from others
Perhaps even “unconscious states.”Slide36
Behaviorism
Something has a
dispositional property
if it will do X in certain conditions.
Solubility
Fragility
Mental states
just are
dispositions to behave in certain ways given certain conditions.Slide37
Examples of Behavioral Analysis
I am angry with Suzie just in case under such and such conditions:
I will yell at Suzie
I will say to Suzie “I am angry with you.”
I will respond to an utterance of “are you angry with Suzie?” with an utterance of “Yes.”
Etc.Slide38
Examples of Behavioral Analysis
I believe that the ice is thin just in case, under such and such conditions:
I will skate warily
I will say to others “Don’t skate there.”
I will avoid that part of the ice.
Etc.Slide39
Examples of Behavioral Analysis
Paul has a toothache just in case (
Hempel
23):
Paul weeps and makes gestures of such and such kinds.
At the question “What is the matter?,” Paul utters the words “I have a toothache.”
Closer examination reveals a decayed tooth with exposed pulp
Paul’s blood pressure, digestive processes, the sped of his reactions show such and such changes.
Such and such processes occur in Paul’s central nervous system.
Etc.Slide40
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
Behavioral analyses of mental states tended to be sloppy and full of holes.
“Such and such conditions”
“Etc.”
Non-behavioral conditionsSlide41
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
Paul has a toothache just in case (
Hempel
23):
Paul weeps and makes gestures of such and such kinds.
At the question “What is the matter?,” Paul utters the words “I have a toothache.”
Closer examination reveals a decayed tooth with exposed pulp
Paul’s blood pressure, digestive processes, the sped of his reactions show such and such changes.
Such and such processes occur in Paul’s central nervous system.
Etc.Slide42
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
Paul has a toothache just in case (
Hempel
23):
Paul weeps and makes gestures of such and such kinds.
At the question “What is the matter?,” Paul utters the words “I have a toothache.”
Closer examination reveals a decayed tooth with exposed pulp
Paul’s blood pressure, digestive processes, the sped of his reactions show such and such changes.
Such and such processes occur in Paul’s central nervous system.
Etc.Slide43
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
Kim points out that the behaviorist may not even be able to refer to
linguistic
behavior
:
That an utterance has a given meaning involves:
Understanding of the speaker
Assumed understanding of the hearer
Intentions to convey certain information
Perhaps beliefs of the speaker.Slide44
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
It is not at all clear how to fill in all those “
etc
.’s” and “such and such-
es
.”
Sometimes
I yell at Suzie when I am angry. But other times I just say mean things behind her back.Slide45
Behavioral Analysis: What is it Good For?
“In the mind-(behavior) case the reduction was never carried out in even
one
possible way, so that it is not possible to be clear on just
how
mental entities or events are to be identified with…behavior events.”
Putnam (38)Slide46
Reading
Read the Chomsky (50
-53 and 59-
62).Slide47
Objection: No Entailments
Logical behaviorism says that there are
entailments
between claims about mental states to claims about behavioral dispositions.
This is false.Slide48
Super-Spartans
Consider a race of Super-Spartans:
They never wince or groan when in pain or show any overt pain behavior
They will never admit to being in pain
In Putnam’s most extreme case, they don’t even have a word for pain.Slide49
Super-Spartans
A Super-Spartan is not even
disposed
to act as if she is in pain.
But they are humans like us, have all the pain receptors and brain states that we do.
So it seems that they
do
feel pain.Slide50
Super-Actors
There is a condition called congenital analgesia in which the subject is incapable of feeling pain.
Consider such a subject who has gotten very good at acting like she is in pain in all the appropriate circumstance.
She will is disposed to act as if she is in pain, but she is not.Slide51
Limitations of Behaviorism
Pain is the absolute best case for the behaviorist.
For more complicated sorts of mental states a behavioral analysis seems utterly hopeless.Slide52
Limitations of Behaviorism
In giving translations for our mental-state language, the behaviorist can appeal to two things:
What happens to the subject (the input/stimulus)
What they do (output/response/behavior)
They
cannot
appeal to unobservable “internal
states” of the subject.Slide53
Limitations of Behaviorism
The problem is that given a stimulus, there is no one-to-one correlation between mental states and behaviors!Slide54
Examples of Behavioral Analysis
I believe that the ice is thin just in case, under such and such conditions:
I will skate warily
I will say to others “Don’t skate there.”
I will avoid that part of the ice.
Etc.Slide55
Mental State Interaction
That I have these dispositions depends on other mental states that I have:
The belief that falling through the ice is dangerous
The desire not to die
The desire not to be cold or wet
If you change these other mental states it completely changes my behavioral dispositions!Slide56
Mental State Interaction
Mental states like belief and desire do not produce behavior on their own
.
If I believe that there is pizza on the table, does that mean I will eat it?
If I
want to
eat the pizza and believe that it is there, does that mean I will eat it?Slide57
Mental State Interaction
Even when you have a pair of mental states that typically cause a given behavior, you still may not act on them!
Further mental states that you have could change how you behave. Slide58
Mental State Interaction
Two Lessons:
A single behavior could be the result of many combinations of mental states.
You can always change the behavioral dispositions I have by adding to or changing my background mental states!Slide59
Mental State Interaction
Mental states
interact
with each other in complicated ways to produce behavior.
But since the behaviorist can only look at the behavior and what external facts caused it, they cannot say anything about this interaction!Slide60
Mental State Interaction
Like the dualist, the behaviorist cannot explain some of the causal powers of mental states.
The dualist could not account for the way mental states interact with physical things.
The behaviorist cannot account for the way in which mental states interact with
each other
.Slide61
Empirical Behaviorism
Even
if there is no reduction of mental states to behavior, it could still be the case that the best way to
study
mental states scientifically is by observing behavior.Slide62
Empirical Behaviorism
Perhaps our best scientific psychology will only make reference to directly observable public phenomena.
Not implausible.
Scientific theories, at least, must be objectively testable
What this means is that many people can conduct the same tests to verify a hypothesis.Slide63
Reading
Read Smart: “Sensations and Brain Processes”
Start reading Chapter 4 (91-103Slide64
Skinner’s Paradigm Case
B.F. Skinner thought that you could do all of psychology in terms of stimulus/response explanations.
The paradigm case of this is in animal conditioning.Slide65
Animal Conditioning
Start with a rat in a cage and a lever that if pushed drops a food pellet.
Rat learns to push the bar to get food.
Change it so now food only drops when a light flashes and the bar is pushed.
Rat learns to push the bar only when the light flashes.
Change it so now food only drops when light flashes and the bar is held down for two seconds.
Rat adapts.
Etc.Slide66
Animal Conditioning as a Paradigm
Skinner thought that all psychology could be studied in these terms
including
something as complex as linguistic competence.Slide67
Noam ChomskySlide68
B.F. SkinnerSlide69
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 1
Skinner has to somehow apply his stimulus/response paradigm to linguistic behavior of fully grown adults.
However, these notions seem predictively useless.
Either empty or false.Slide70
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 1
Suppose you present me with a stimulus: a painting. I could make any of a number of responses.
“Dutch.”
“Clashes with the wallpaper.”
“I thought you liked abstract work.”
“Tilted.”
“Do you remember our camping trip last summer?”Slide71
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 1
Skinner’s response: for each of these responses I would be under the control of a different element of the stimulus.Slide72
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 1
Chomsky: “This device is as simple as it is empty.” (54
)
Of course every stimulus has many properties.
Which one we are focusing on does determine our response.
But this is predictively useless since we can only tell which features of the stimulus are controlling
after
the response!
You can only control features of the stimulus in highly artificial laboratory environments.Slide73Slide74
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 2
Skinner says proper noun usage is under the control of particular things or people.
But I can use the words “Eisenhower” and “Moscow” even though I have never encountered them.
What about my
own
proper name? Slide75
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 2
This notion of a response being “controlled by a stimulus” is hopelessly vague:
‘Needle in a haystack’ is controlled “by a particular type of situation.”
‘The boy runs to the store’ is controlled by “an extremely complex stimulus situation.”
‘This is war’ is controlled by “a confusing international situation.”Slide76Slide77
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 3
What about the responses?
What counts as a unit of verbal behavior analogous to a rat pushing a bar?Slide78
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 3
“No method is suggested for determining in a particular instance what are the controlling variable, how many such units have occurred, or where their boundaries are in the total response. Nor is any attempt made to specify how much or what kind of similarity is required for two physical events to be the same (response). In short, no answers are suggested for the most elementary questions that must be asked of anyone proposing a method for description of behavior.” (55)Slide79
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 3
Still worse, many intrinsic elements of linguistic utterances can play a role in meaning:
Speed at which they are uttered
Tone
Volume
Pace
Repetition
Pitch
Energy levelSlide80
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 3
Skinner: These things aren’t very important because these things are “fully understood in every culture.”
“If shown a prized work of art and exclaim
Beautiful!
, the speed and energy of the response will not be lost on the owner.” (56)Slide81
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 3
Chomsky:
“It does not appear totally obvious that in this case the way to impress the owner is to shriek
Beautiful
in a loud high-pitched voice, repeatedly, and with no delay (high response strength). It may be equally effective to look at the picture silently (long delay) and then murmur
Beautiful
in a soft, low-pitched voice (very low response strength).” (56)Slide82Slide83
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 4
Skinner’s behavioristic approach does not seem to have any hope of accounting for the acquisition of linguistic competence.Slide84
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 4
Language is
productive
in that basic understanding allows the construction and understanding of new and novel sentences,
that no one has ever heard or uttered before
.Slide85
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 4
U
nderstanding a language involves possessing a
grammar
for that language.
Understanding basic syntactic units
Understanding proper rules of construction of these basic.Slide86
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 4
“The young child has succeeded in carrying out what form the formal point of view, at least, seems a remarkable type of theory construction. Furthermore, this task is accomplished in an astonishingly short time, to a large extent independently of intelligence, and in a comparable way for all children. Any theory of learning must cope with these facts…”Slide87
Highlights of the
Beatdown
: Round 4
“We can predict that a direct attempt to account for the actual behavior of speaker, listener, and learner, not based on
prior understanding of the structure of grammars
will achieve very limited success.” (61)Slide88Slide89
Chomsky’s Conclusions
First, insofar as the stimulus/response talk is useful it is only useful when supplemented with internal facts about the speaker’s mental states:
Beliefs
What they are focusing on
Their personality
Their intentions in uttering the sentence
Understanding of basic grammar
Understanding of contextual and societal influence on meanings of utterancesSlide90
Chomsky’s Conclusions
Skinner doesn’t get away from these considerations: he implicitly appeals to them in his descriptions.Slide91
Chomsky’s Conclusions
Linguistic competence and behavior is far more complicated than Skinner seems to think.
A proper explanation of this phenomena will necessarily involve appealing to internal mental phenomena.Slide92
Lessons from the Failure of Behaviorism
We can draw two lessons from the failure of behaviorism:
Mental states interact with one
another to produce behavior.
Explaining mental phenomena requires appeal to internal processes and states of an organism.Slide93
Significance of Behavior
Of course, no one denies that studying behavior is an important element of psychology.
Observing the behavior of minded things is one of the primary ways in which we study how their minds work.Slide94
Significance of Behavior
Stimulus/response
Reports on mental states (“Pain is a 5”)
Performance of experimental tasks
Ability to accomplish normal tasks in everyday life.
Etc.Slide95
Significance of Behavior
The criticisms of behaviorism only show that the relation between mental states and behavior is more complicated than the behaviorist maintains.