Phl 303
Lecture 12: The Behaviorist Theory of Mind

Today's Lecture: The Behaviorist Theory of Mind

I. Three Theories of the Mind
II. Behaviorism as a version of Physicalism
III. Implications for Education and Government
IV. Skinner's Theory of Value

I. Three Theories of the Mind

A. Hylomorphism (Aristotle, Aquinas)

The mind is an aspect of the soul, which is the form of the body.
Depends on the application of formal and final causation.
The body's having a "form" in Aristotle's sense is dependent on its having a final cause (natural functions).

B. Dualism (Descartes)

The mind is a separate entity, that interacts with the body.
Depends on the existence of non-physical, unobservable entities, and on the incompleteness of physical causation.

C. Physicalism (Hobbes, Skinner)

No final causation, and a closed & complete network of physical causes.

Two varieties:

Eliminationism. Mental states -- beliefs, desires, attitudes, perceptions -- do not really exist.
They are the myths, elements of a pre-scientific picture of human beings.
Reductionism. Mental states are a special kind of physical/chemical state.
Science should look for "bridge laws" that link mental and physical states.

Skinner is an eliminationist.
Reductionism has not fared well in 20th century.

Three related problems for reductionism:

Mental states involve final causation, natural functions. The final cause of belief is knowledge.
" " " " desire is fulfillment.
" " " " hunger is eating food.
" " " " fear is safety.
" " " " love is the good of the beloved.
Mental states have the property of intentionality -- they are about something. I can "see" something that isn't there.
Any false belief is about an unreal situation.
E.g., I believe in Clinton's honesty.
How can there be, in physics, a real relation to an unreal object?
Intentionality is connected to final causation: a belief is about a certain kind of situation if that belief is supposed to be formed only when that kind of situation is known to be present.
The problem of multiple realizability. The same mental state could be realized by infinitely many different physical states.
The same belief can be shared by people whose brains are quite different, even by creatures of different species.
Even -- aliens who are silicon-based, or androids with electronic brains.
This is a characteristic feature of teleological states: the same end can be achieved by infinitely many different means.
Screwdrivers can be made of many different materials, in many different shapes or forms (power vs. manual).
More than 30 different kinds of eyes in nature.

II. Behaviorism as a Version of Physicalism

Early version of physicalism: stimulus response model.

Build a simple, 2-column table:
inputs in first column, outputs in second.

Operant conditioning: includes a kind of "memory" of past experience.

Possibility of positive and negative reinforcement.
X is a positive reinforcement of behavior Y if and only if the association of X with Y makes the repetition of Y more likely.

Human beings are finite automata.

Represent by a more complicated table.

Rows: possible inputs (environmental conditions).
Columns: possible internal states.

In each square, we put two things:

The output, behavior produced.
The new internal state into which the subject is transformed. (This new state may include, in effect, a "memory" of past behaviors and associated inputs.)

Everything is finite: finitely many inputs (conditions to which the subject is potentially sensitive), finitely many internal states, finitely many possible behaviors.

III Implications of Behaviorism for Education and Government

A. Education -- especially moral, character education.

Classical (teleological) view: there is a fundamental distinction between manipulation and education.

Education:

Assists and nurtures natural development of moral sense, character
Goal: teachers initiate learners into a state to which they have already attained (maturity, wisdom).

Manipulation:

Circumvents or overrides natural functions, development.
Goal: to modify students' behavior for the good of society, without reference to the current state of the teachers. On the behaviorist view: this distinction is empty. All so-called education is merely a form of manipulation (behavior control).
There is no natural development, "no unfolding of a pre-determined pattern" (p. 89)

B. Government
On classical view, individual liberty is an important goal:
In order to attain happiness, each individual needs opportunities to exercise and develop virtue & practical wisdom.
This necessitates a sphere of private sovereignty, autonomy, provided by private property and a framework of just law.
Distinction: liberty & license.
One has no right to do what is inherently vicious -- e.g., to murder, enslave or dominate another.
When law prohibits such vicious acts, no liberty is lost.
Contrast: Rousseau & Hobbes (17th English thinker) held that every law is a restriction of liberty. Perfect liberty is possible only in the state of nature.
Skinner: there is no such thing as liberty. So, no law, regulation or social control involves a loss of "liberty". Liberty is not an intelligible social goal.
Why not? Skinner denies the existence of choice, and of virtue.
These are mythical components of happiness.
Another contrast:
On the classical view, the state is a partnership, based on mutual respect, and the use of persuasion, not coercion or manipulation.
Persuasion: speech that engages the faculties of the rational mind, assisting them to function properly in reaching a reasonable conclusion.
Manipulation (misuse of rhetoric): speech that seeks to circumvent or override the faculties of the rational mind (through the exploitation of weaknesses and biases), causing them to function improperly and form an unreasonable conclusion.
Skinner denies the validity of the persuasion/manipulation distinction. He denies the existence of such inner faculties, and of the distinction of proper/improper functioning.
Skinner argues that there "should" be reciprocity between controllers and controlled, effective measures of "counter-conntrol". (p. 169)
However, he gives no reason why this should be so. Nor does he explain when efforts at counter-control are proper and when they are merely the result of neurotic attachment to "freedom".
If the controller has the proper goals, why shouldn't his power be absolute?
Can there be effective countercontrol, when the controller is acting benevolently? No rational basis for objection. Result: the nanny state. (Hillaire Belloc, The Servile State).

IV. Skinner's Theory of Value
Definition:
Good things are positive reinforcers.
A positive reinforcer is a consequence of behavior that makes the behavior more likely to recur.
Immediate consequence: radical relativism.
What is good for you may not be good for me.
What reinforces us depends not only on genetic endowment, but also on "training" by environment. Both vary from person to person.
Seems to follow:
The best things are those consequences that most effectively reinforce behavior.
In the long run and for the most part, the most effective reinforcers must succeed in reinforcing.
Consequently, most people behave so as to produce the most effective reinforcers.
E.g., addicts enjoy the life that is best for them, since their behavior is under the control of the most powerful reinforcers.
Ditto for serial killers, who are most effectively reinforced by the thrill of violence.

Last updated October 13, 1998
Created by: Robert C. Koons
Send comments to: koons@la.utexas.edu

Phl 303 Home Page | Phl 303 Lecture Outlines | Philosophy Department | Prof. Koons | UT Austin Web Central

Phl 303 Lecture 12: The Behaviorist Theory of Mind