Topic 1: Logical behaviourism Physicalism Topic 1: Logical behaviourism Learning objective: To understand what is meant by physicalism and logical behaviourism Key Words

Materialism/physicalism Physicalism as the view that everything that exists is physical, or depends upon something that is physical. ‘Physical’ means something that comes under the laws of Physics. It claims that what is physical is metaphysically fundamental – the fundamental nature of the universe is physical. So, every physical event has a physical cause. Mental properties, if they exist, are dependent on physical ones.

Logical behaviourism Non-reductive dependency: logical behaviourism is a type of ‘non-reductive’ physicalism. Mental properties cannot be reduced to physical properties but they can be reduced to behavioural dispositions. It doesn’t say mental properties can be reduced to something physical ones (like the brain) but can be reduced to something else. (So it is called non-reductive.) It is physicalist because behavioural dispositions depend upon physical properties (the body to behave).

Read lacewing 228-229 and write down what is meant by supervenience.

What do they say the mind is? HARD BEHAVIOURISM says…. It is actual behaviour –to believe something is to say you believe it. to feel pain is to wince or shout out.

I will give one of you a statement and the rest of the class needs to see whether they can tell the mental state from their behaviour. You are not allowed to reference a mental state (e.g use the word think if I give you a thought)

You are delighted You feel sick You have an itchy knee You enjoy watching Made in Chelsea You wish you had more money You think it might rain later

Problems with hard behaviourism? We can control our behaviour We can stop ourselves wincing but still may feel pain The same mental states can be expressed in different behaviours One behaviour can mean different mental states (‘air blow out of your mouth’ – what different actions and mental states could that represent?) Many mental states are dispositions (I still know French even when I’m not speaking it)

So, LB says that the mind is dispositions to behave in certain ways. So the mind is not a substance – we can talk about mental states on the basis on people’s behaviour.

Arguments for? We can’t access other people’s minds – we only see their behaviour It overcomes the problem of interactionism that SD has The idea of dispositions makes behaviourism more plausible

Gilbert Ryle A dispositional property is… Dispositions can be contrasted with occurrences because… To say ‘she wishes she had more money’ is to mean: if her parents offer her money she would take it; she would go out and hand her CV in to shops; she would say ‘I need money’ if asked. People do not possess them as a state in themselves, but display them through what they do in certain situations. 1) Something prone to happen 2) occurrence is actually happening, disposition is ‘under certain circumstances this would happen’

Not cause and effect Not saying something like – the glass broke because a stone hit it More like – the glass broke when the stone hit it, because the glass is brittle. What’s the difference? Have a go at task on page 300 of orange book.