Behavior and Mental Content

Dissertation, Syracuse University (1991)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Behaviorism is dead! Or so claim the majority of philosophers today. I aim to show that they are wrong. ;I defend philosophical behaviorism as an account of our ordinary, pretheoretical concepts pertaining to the intentional aspects of mind. The theory purports to explain in purely behavioral terms what it is for a mental state to be a belief, a desire or a thought, and what it is about the state that gives it its content. Like Rylean behaviorism, it does not seek to characterize intentional states in isolation from one another. It thereby honors the obvious fact that how we behaviorally manifest our beliefs depends upon our desires, and vice versa. Still, the theory is reductionistic in that it ultimately characterizes intentionality solely in terms of behavioral facts which can be expressed in a purely non-mentalistic vocabulary. ;Over the years, behaviorism has been the target of vigorous attack. In what follows, I consider some of the most popular objections that have been raised. These include: putative counterexamples involving paralytics, deceivers, martians and robots which are designed to show that behavioral criteria provide neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for intentionality, the claim mental content is underdetermined by how one is disposed to behave, the intuition that mental states are internal and causally efficacious and, the worry that since qualitative states can't be reduced to behavior, neither can beliefs about those states. I argue that all of these worries can be successfully handled by a theory which remains completely--or, at least, predominantly--behavioristic. ;Although I am largely concerned with counter-arguments, my dissertation is not entirely defensive. In order to bring out the merits of behaviorism, I show how it compares favorably with some alternative attempts to characterize intentionality purely physically--most notably, popular varieties of Functionalism. I am thereby able to conclude that behaviorism not only remains a viable account of mental content, but is perhaps the most viable

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Making Room for Bodily Intentionality.Todd D. Janke - 2008 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):51-68.
Subjectivity, Real Intentionality, and Animal Minds.Sara Jane Worley - 1991 - Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Functionalism and the Content of Experience.Henry Owen Jacoby - 1983 - Dissertation, University of Southern California
Content and Function: A Defense of Millikanian Teleosemantics.Justine Margaret Joy Kingsbury - 1999 - Dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick
Two routes to narrow content: Both dead ends.Pat A. Manfredi - 1993 - Philosophical Psychology 6 (1):3-22.
?From natural function to indeterminate content?Sonja R. Sullivan - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 69 (2-3):129-37.
Intentionality, qualia, and mind/brain identity.Paul Schweizer - 1994 - Minds and Machines 4 (3):259-82.
Aspects of Intentional Explanation.Neil A. Farnsworth - 1982 - Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario (Canada)
Commonsense Psychology.Shaun Nichols - 1992 - Dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick
Gordon Foxall on Intentional Behaviorism.Max Hocutt - 2007 - Behavior and Philosophy 35:77 - 92.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Francescotti
San Diego State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references