Abstract

Each of the following might be considered both necessary and sufficient for an organism to count as a psychological organism: (a) being able to do something that requires a psychological theory to explain; (b) being capable of having experiences; (c) being motivated; (d) behaving in ways that are the joint outcome of the organism's beliefs and desires; (e) being capable of instrumental learning, or operant conditioning; (f) being susceptible to classical conditioning. This paper takes up each of these candidates in turn in an effort to clarify what the idea of a psychological organism really is. An argument is sketched for saying that (f) yields the weakest version of the idea of a psycholgical organism, that (e) yields a stronger version, and that (d) yields an even stronger one. What these versions have in common makes them all versions of a single idea.