Any psychological statement can be
translated, without loss of content, into a
cluster of statements that are solely about
the behavioral phenomenon.
Support
Conforms to Ockham's razor
Avoids suffering from the private language argument
Problems
Multiple realisability of mental states
(i) Different people express mental states in different behaviors in the same situation
(ii) It seems that mental states cannot be clearly categorized of behavioral dispositions
(iii)This therefore makes it unnecessary to have any disposition in order to have a mental state
Dispositions depend not just on the
behavior in one circumstance but also
certain hypothetical statements in
other situations are true
An example would be if i ran away from something
doesn't mean that i am sacred of it. It also depends
if another situation causes me to be scared i would
run away from that aswell
Problem of circularity
(i) There is no stand-alone definition of a mental state
(ii) In order to do this we must refer to other mental states
(iiI) This shows that mental states are dependent on each other
(iv) This shows a dispositional analysis of mental
states is near impossible with no definition to base
it off
The conceivability of mental states without
associated behavior (Super-spartans)
(i) Super spartians are people who have evolved to
completely supress all pain behaviors
(ii) However, it is conceivable that they still
experience pain
(iii) This shows that pain can be understood without
behavioral dispositions
In order for spartans to surpress all pain
behaviours they would have to know about
behavioral dispositions
Putnam argues that spartans are fully encultured meaning they from
birth they would know they are in pain without expressing pain
behaviors
The asymmetry between self-knowledge and knowledge of other
people's mental states
(i) There seems to be asymmetry between self-knowledge
and knowledge of other people's mental states
(ii)Behaviorism rules out an asymmetry
between self-knowledge and knowledge of
other people's mental states