Philosophy of Mind 2 - Logical Behaviourism

[@TheDJmusso]

You deserve a bigger audience

[@louismarkhudson]

10/10 man this is a lifesaver for my philosophy A-level

[@meghnasingh970]

I don't know how to thank you enough. You are just God for me. Helping me a lot with every Playlist of yours.

[@HarryTheGreat666]

What if we consider the neural activity of the brain from behaviorist perspective? A and B who want water might have similar neuronal activity which is a common “behavior" in all people who want water.

[@yourfutureself3392]

I think you have to seriously change the definition of behavior to include neural activity.

[@ianpatrickmchugh787]

Your videos are absolutely invaluable for me, sir. I greatly look forward to each new installment in this series.

[@meghnasingh970]

I've understood everything perfectly just because of you. Specially the philosophy of science Playlist.

[@thomaserickson568]

I love this so much. You present the behaviorist position so well that I get it. And I can refute every one of your "refutations" of the behaviorist position. The Putnam parable is laughable in that it begins by presupposing the very conclusion that it attempts to prove. I listen to this a lot when I get caught up in "mind reading." I always assume people don't like me, think poorly of me, etc. This helps me turn off that train of thought so I feel better just focusing on their behavior. Thanks man! You've helped me a lot, ironically by proving to me what you attempt to disprove. Cheers!

[@dirtsa118]

This was great very well explained better than my lecturer

[@rosiesummer4527]

Great video! Far clearer than my text book

[@usbsol]

Radical behaviourism is really the most interesting version - you should do a video on that. And then one on RFT (Relational Frame Theory) 😊 Thanks

[@rwevwrev]

51:00 "...but I guess you have to be smart to talk yourself into accepting a view like this". This phrase pretty much sums up 95% of philosophy.

[@gerbenschwab9588]

Man, that was such a ride! Thanks!

[@davidrodriguez3015]

Can you do a video on BF Skinners trick to label sensations as private behaviors?

[@pliskinn0089]

How is Logical Behaviorism applied in Gilbert Ryle category mistake ?

[@vaster91]

you're a mad dawg kane b, cheers

[@Dante-ot8xg]

One objection to Logical Behaviorism is that in order to spell out what one kind of mental state is (e.g., believing that it is raining) in terms of behavior, we must advert to other kinds of mental states. could you elaborate on this?

[@justus4684]

26:15 Lolol loving this🤣 50:50 😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂

[@absupinhere]

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for!

[@drewprescott5198]

Do you know how to argue against the idea that behaviourism is inaccurate because there are actors and con- artists in the world. So how would behaviorists argue against people that are only acting and would you just refer to the example about people suppressing pain? Thank you

[@aTownMike24]

Excellent video. To go back to "colorless movements", wouldn't reducing any action eventually (have to) yield general concepts independent of mental attributes to be analytically fruitful? It all depends on the goal if course... The language of dispositions was an early attempt to categorize state spaces, and is not very different from assumptions driving much of evo and personality psych today (i think). But maybe these points are irrelevant to a philosophical analysis

[@TheEllis91]

Great video. Surprised there's not more viewers

[@marthascott1335]

26:10 cracks me up every time

[@SuperEllese]

Loving the Dog's input. :)

[@JhonnySerna]

There is a mix of good objections and bad objections. Among the bad: the Moore-based common sense argument that we must reject assumptions that run counter to a common experience as implausible. Sorry to say it, but Moore's argument is not convincing at all. The notion of space in the theory of relativity was not plausible nor is it plausible for our common experience of space. The notion of evolved species is most likely not plausible either, and perhaps a notion of countless generations having one another without having to worry about things like genes and phenotypes is more common. Neither did the argument that a person could have pain and know that they are in pain without exhibiting pain behavior. Behaviorists might say that such a person stores long chains of learning in distributed neurological zones, and therefore internally exhibits that behavior. It can be added that, in general, the phylogeny of the species allows organisms to have a much more privileged knowledge of their sensory behavior, so that this apparent problem is only a first step with which any methodology that studies the private world 'of a person must be able to cope. On the good objections: the argument against the verification theory is decisive, although it does not affect behaviors later than Watson's, since from the new behaviorisms concepts such as learning history, latent behaviors and private behaviors were introduced as self-controls. Another argument that is partially successful is that behavioral analyzes of mentalistic statements lead to more mentalistic terms. This is true if and only if we have already acquired knowledge about the cognitive processes that underlie activities such as the understanding, attention and beliefs of (to follow the example of the video) an individual like Frank. But if those processes are not known, then the behaviorist might respond that Frank's case is nothing more than a history of learning, self-control behaviors, and instructional stimuli that are then responded to based on the same learning history and self-controls. (at least, if we are stopped since the operant modification).

[@M3Lucky]

Love your channel man :)

[@M3Lucky]

Thank you Kane B

[@karachaffee3343]

I am holding the image and idea of an equilateral triangle in my mind. What is the behavior that demonstrates this ? This theory isn't even wrong.

[@jonasjensen9305]

That comment you wrote is the behavior that demonstrates your mental perception of a triangle.

[@yuriarin3237]

do one about dennett's intetniona lstance

[@ellanassar9189]

You sir is a genius!

[@numbynumb]

Great video.

[@benchin296]

extremely helpful you teach better than my prof

[@21stcenturyoptimist]

How is it possible that behaviorism came into existance.

[@hannsjurgenhodann6268]

Was this video helpfull? Absolutely!

[@spannerdude1]

"It's bollocks and u know it" hahaha

[@matthewisza103]

help me see psychology clearer

[@HeyWelcomeToMyWorld]

Fucking legend!

[@yuriarin3237]

average orange-wanter, chad diet orange enjoyer

[@ZishanWazedBegg]

One logical behaviourist unliked this video 😂

[@wolfbenson]

Just found this. I'm a Board Certified Behavior Analyst and probably the only one I know who thinks behaviorism is just plain wrong about explaining human behavior. While ABA (applied behavior analysis) is very effective in teaching children with autism (what I do for a living), I do not believe that mental states are irrelevant and know that such beliefs often get in the way of effective treatment. For instance: "Child (non-verbal) is not responding to stimulus because the reinforcement schedule is too thin." Maybe child is not responding because his sandals are so tight that he's in pain and can't concentrate. (An actual event in one of my sessions). Or child is sad because of tragedy in family. You have covered a lot of the bases in simple, easy to follow terminology, and I look forward to viewing more of your series.

[@diegocm8636]

+Benjamin Wolfson Responding after one year, but there it is: Logical Behaviorism and Radical Behaviorism are different. Behavior Analysis is not based on Logical Behaviorism, but in Radical Behaviorism. In LB it states that mental states, feelings, etc, are not accessible, so it must not be taken into account. In RB, such mental states are taken into account, but they are explained in behavioral (not-mental) terms. I'll use your example. This child did not respond because his sandals were to tight. That was the stimulus that caused the pain AND the not responding. In LB: If they don't demonstrate behavior, they are not feeling. In RB: The feeling is a behavior. the demonstrating behavior is another behavior. They are separate. LB is closer to methodological behaviorism in the sense that "there is something there, we can't see it, so don't care about it". RB says "that something is important, but it goes on the same rules as any behavior, i.e., it can be reinforced/punished like other behaviors".

[@wolfbenson]

Hi, Ok, I guess I just don't know enough about the diff between RB and LB. When you say the painful stimulus (tight sandals) caused the "not responding" I don't get it. I could see that his not responding to my Sd ("clap hands" or whatever it was) was not any kind of stimulus to respond or not to because while in pain, that pain, that was the only stimulus for the child. So, my point is, it wasn't that he was not responding to my Sd, it was that he was, at the time, responding to an internal stimulus. So in LB, that would be, I'm asking here, what? Did not respond to therapist's Sd due to overriding pain stimulus? Or would that be RB's explanation? I just don't get, "The feeling is a behavior." I asked Jack Michael's once if "mental states" were behavior. He said, "Yes." I still don't get it. When someone's usual MO's (responding to Sd's for the reinforcement), are not present (due to overriding pain), the therapist's Sd's are not a stimulus because the child is not at all attending to them. Help me out here....

[@diegocm8636]

+Benjamin Wolfson HEY! I can’t believe you responded! A year later! Haha! =D And now Itook over a week to answer you.. Sorry, I’m loaded with work.. but so, let’s get rocking: So, from what I understand, in this child’s example, the RB’s explanation is that the sandals are causing behaviors (including pain and other behaviors) that are incompatible with doing what he’s supposed to do. Like, if I ask you a question while cutting your arm, you’ll not anwser my question (sorry for the shitty example). So yeah, two competing stimulus, one is overriding the other. If the child, for any reason, does not show observable pain behaviors, I think LB proponents would say that the child is not feeling pain, because the observable behavior IS the pain, there is nothing inside. RB would say that the child is probably feeling pain, a private behavior (only the child can observe), arguing that everyone else feels pain in the same situation, so the child must be feeling it, even if we can’t observe. So, if the child is not demonstrating, another stimulus must be competing, maybe his father reinforced not feeling pain because he wants a “macho” son, I dunno (depends on the history of reinforcement).From what I understand LB says that the observable behavior IS the pain. Pain is reduced to observable behavior only. Methodological says that there is something inside, but it doesn’t matter, because it’s not observable. RB says that it does matter, but it isn’t “mental”, it is behavior and follow the same rules as observable behavior. So in RB, pain is not the observable behavior, it’s another behavior. About my (and Jack’s) statement. When we say that “mental states” are behavior, the reason is the following: feelings and thoughts can be reinforced, punished, it doesn’t have special role in the causal chain, so there is no reason to think that they’re special or supernatural (mental). The only different characteristic is that it is private. There is no reason to think that it is something more than behavior (behavior defined as ambient-organism relation).A good example is thinking. What you think is affected by everything around you in the same way that an overt behavior is, you can even reinforce it, so why call it something different?I know it's difficult to "get it", but one way I think it's easier to understand is reading about "seeing on the absence of the thing seen". I think chapters on perception or private events on books like Understanding Behaviorism by William Baum can help. When we see an apple, and later we imagine it, what we are doing then is seeing the apple. The behavior of seeing, that we learned when we looked at the apple before. The more common Cognitive theories says that what happens is that we "store" the apple in the "memory", and "retrieve" it later. It has so many scientific and philosophical problems that I find amazing how it's popular (but of course, the simplicity and usefulness of saying it like that is very nice). Seeing is a behavior and can be trained and influenced (like an artist that can discriminate colors), and it's private behavior like feelings. (Looking is observable, but it's different. You can look and not see). About the Sd’s, well… If I understood the question I think the problem is only taxonomy here. Let’s see: If you do some training and teach to respond to S+, and not S-, and then when the responding is consistent you call the S+ a Sd. Then there is some stimulus interfering with this responding, so it’s not consistent anymore. Is it still Sd? I really don’t know. I wouldn’t call it Sd just because it’s not the exact same situation, I think. But maybe you could call it Sd because the probability of responding on the Sd is still probably much higher than in S- (because of the training). PS: I kinda confused LB with Methodological in my first comment. I’m still learning about LB, I don’t claim that what I said is 100% correct. AAAAnd my english is not the greatest, sorry if I made many mistakes.