The mind body problem

smileykate

Hey there,
I am a first year student studying psychology in a social care degree and have my exam coming up in 2 days!!!!
We'v a question on the mind body debate and i have been studying the dualism and monism perspectives on it! I am just wondering from those who know about it, is there any other relevant and very important perspective that i have been leaving out?
I have been reading through reams of information on it but as far as i can see these are the 2 main perspectives, then again i amalmost failing the subject!! So would appreciate if anyone could help me out, Thanks,

Myksyk

I think you have the two main perspectives there Smileykate. I can't even posit what a third perspective might be!

snorlax

2 days?! the best plan would be to get a main text book or even a consise introduction to psychology book to get a brief introduction to the two perspectives (without too much detail ) and make notes to get the general gist of it and try and beef it out in your own words for the exam.

if you can learn off any dates do and it's important to be able spell the theorists names properly.

exactly how many pages/ what detail do they expect off you? the important thing is to be calm and just keep writting once you get into exam as you won't get any marks for a blank page. even if you think it's wrong..

good luck

DadaKopf

You could try John Searle's weird position. Naturalistic (or Materialistic) Dualism. The brain is completely material, no magic stuff in there, but brains/cells/the mind have an intrinsic intentionality. A weird position.

Daniel Dennett attacks Searle. Dennett is an evolutionist and says that consciousness is the 'emergent property' of the functioning of the human brain, which functions three dimensionally, at a much higher and complex rate of cognition than all other animals. The mind gets so complex that free will is possible. Of course, the mind/consciousness relies on inputs - i.e. it's nothing without the external world.

You might also like to check out the logical behaviouralists, particularly Gilbert Ryle who challenged dualism (and maybe monism) head on. He said the only way we can answer the mind/consciousness question is to observe people's behaviour - he came to the consclusion that behaviour and the mind are synonymous.

You could also look at the positions of the Hilary Putnam (one of his many positions, he changes his mind) and Smart and Place. They're identity theorists who, interestingly say that the mind is described in different ways but it's the same thing (purely material) - e.g. 'pain' is identical to 'neuron X firing' which is identical to someone looking like they're in pain.

Eoghan-psych

DadaKopf wrote:

You might also like to check out the logical behaviouralists, particularly Gilbert Ryle who challenged dualism (and maybe monism) head on. He said the only way we can answer the mind/consciousness question is to observe people's behaviour - he came to the consclusion that behaviour and the mind are synonymous.

That would certainly be the most sensible position - mind is the behaviour of the brain, much as walking is the behaviour of the legs.

DadaKopf

Well, what ended up happening was that it equated mental states with behaviour - there was no loss of meaning between thinking and doing. But what if you're not doing? What if you're sitting there, exhibiting no external signs. Are you not thinking?

Further problems came when behaviourism was connected with language - to me, to assume that there's no loss of meaning when you convert thought to language, and when another hears it and understands it, this is rediculous.

But that's philosophical behaviourism. Psychological behaviourism, like B. F. Skinner, is different. That looks at the neurophysiological and psychological conditions of behavioural programming/learning.

Perhaps similar, but both deeply flawed.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

Eoghan-psych

DadaKopf wrote:

Perhaps similar, but both deeply flawed.

<cough> Data <cough>.

Truth, first and foremost, is pragmatic - truth works. It does stuff. We can, using truth, make stuff happen. Behaviourism *works*.

Have a kid who repeatedly bangs their head against a wall until they pass out? Have an autistic kid who can't manage basic self-care? A developmentally disabled adult who cannot remain continent? An unruly terrier? A horse who can't be loaded?

Call an ABA specialist - there are applied behavioural solutions to each and every one of those [they're random samples from the past three years or so of the relevant journals]. Those solutions flow directly from the position of radical behaviourism.

What is indeed deeply flawed is the way in which behaviour analysis is presented to most students, and in most textbooks [this has also been documented in the behavioural literature].

John

Eoghan-psych wrote:

<cough> Data <cough>.

Truth, first and foremost, is pragmatic - truth works. It does stuff. We can, using truth, make stuff happen. Behaviourism *works*.

Have a kid who repeatedly bangs their head against a wall until they pass out? Have an autistic kid who can't manage basic self-care? A developmentally disabled adult who cannot remain continent? An unruly terrier? A horse who can't be loaded?

Call an ABA specialist - there are applied behavioural solutions to each and every one of those [they're random samples from the past three years or so of the relevant journals]. Those solutions flow directly from the position of radical behaviourism.

What is indeed deeply flawed is the way in which behaviour analysis is presented to most students, and in most textbooks [this has also been documented in the behavioural literature].

I concur with the above. In fact my girlfriend is working as a tutor for autistic kids using ABA. The logic is sound and most importantly the results are impressive.

Playboy

Eoghan-psych wrote:

<cough> Data <cough>.

Truth, first and foremost, is pragmatic - truth works. It does stuff. We can, using truth, make stuff happen. Behaviourism *works*.

Have a kid who repeatedly bangs their head against a wall until they pass out? Have an autistic kid who can't manage basic self-care? A developmentally disabled adult who cannot remain continent? An unruly terrier? A horse who can't be loaded?

Call an ABA specialist - there are applied behavioural solutions to each and every one of those [they're random samples from the past three years or so of the relevant journals]. Those solutions flow directly from the position of radical behaviourism.

What is indeed deeply flawed is the way in which behaviour analysis is presented to most students, and in most textbooks [this has also been documented in the behavioural literature].

True that ABA is the most successful treatment that we have for autism but that does not mean that behaviourism or ABA is not flawed. ABA is not as successful or even appropriate in treating other psychological problems.

Eoghan-psych

Playboy wrote:

True that ABA is the most successful treatment that we have for autism but that does not mean that behaviourism or ABA is not flawed. ABA is not as successful or even appropriate in treating other psychological problems.

Only one of those examples related to autism.

Behaviour analytic interventions are in use for PTSD, depression, psychosis, chronic pain [the psychological impact, not the pain itself] and chronic constipation [again, just random examples from the past few years].

This is why I stated that it is the *teaching* about behaviour analysis that is most flawed - I doubt anyone outside the 'hardcore' [i.e. people who would describe themselves as behaviourists or behaviour analysts] is familiar with the more exciting stuff.
Eoghan

DadaKopf

This thread's about the mind/body problem.

Skinnerian behaviourism encountered problems because it went too far. The mind was seen as a purely functional mechanism that processes inputs and outputs.

Basically, behavioural techniques produce desired effects, but evidence also shows that its extent/efficacy is limited - i.e. it's not the be all and end all of everything. Certainly not the alpha and omega of psychology.

Altering brain functions/behaviour as a result of conditioning simply means that people are adaptive, but I think it's a mistake to exaggerate this observation to conclude that behaviourism rules OK. We simply don't know enough about the brain/mind and behaviourism can just as easily produce bad outcomes, too.

Basically, it's an effective psychological tool for certain things. But it went too far.

Eoghan-psych

DadaKopf wrote:

Basically, it's an effective psychological tool for certain things. But it went too far.

It has gone far further over the years, and is still going strong kicking out demonstrably effective interventions all rooted in an approach which simply ignores "mind/body problems".

DadaKopf

Ah yeah. Mind = body etc.

Dr. Octagon

DadaKopf wrote:

You could try John Searle's weird position. Naturalistic (or Materialistic) Dualism. The brain is completely material, no magic stuff in there, but brains/cells/the mind have an intrinsic intentionality. A weird position.

I don't see what is so weird about this opinion? I also don't see why it can't agree with Evolution? We evolved to have lungs. The function of our lungs is to breath. The reason our lungs can perform this function is due to their micro and macroscopic structure. Our lungs developed through gradual evolutionary changes in this structure (above atomic dimensions). Similarly it is our brains function to think. The brain can think due to its neurological architecture.