Still some explaining to do: A review of <i>The Escape of the Mind</i> by Howard Rachlin

Dougher, Michael J.

doi:10.1002/jeab.229

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, it is behavior."). Promising as such a theory might be, it still is light on the details (Dougher, 2016). Functionalism (e.g., Buechner, 2008) and the mind-brain identity theory (e.g., Polger, 2004), have been formulated in far more detail.…”

Section: What To Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Suing for Peace in the War Against Mentalism

Burgos

Killeen

2018

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antimentalists' war against mentalism has not vanquished it. To examine why, we focus on two theses-mind as causal and internal-and three standard attacks against mentalism as defined by both theses: 1) mentalism implies dualism; 2) mind is unobservable, which hinders its scientific study; and 3) mentalism is impractical. These salients fail because: 1) if the mind is causal and internal, it must be material; 2) the observable/unobservable distinction is too problematic, with antimentalists equivocal about where to draw that line, with some even embracing publicly unobservable behavior as causally relevant; and 3) mentalism has not been demonstrated to be less practical than antimentalism. For the war on mentalism to succeed, stronger attacks must be devised, both scientific and philosophical. We contemplate some possibilities, while expressing doubts as to the wisdom of continuing the war. Peace may be better than war, and the resulting intellectual commerce may be good for both sides.

show abstract

Section: What To Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Suing for Peace in the War Against Mentalism

Burgos

Killeen

2018

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The writing of this article was motivated by Michael Dougher's () review of my book, “The Escape of the Mind.” However, the article is not a direct response to the review, and is intended to stand alone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is talking to yourself thinking?

Rachlin

2017

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question whether talking to yourself is thinking is considered from two viewpoints: radical behaviorism and teleological behaviorism. For radical behaviorism, following Skinner (1945), mental events such as 'thinking' may be explained in terms of private behavior occurring within the body, ordinarily unobservable by other people; thus, radical behaviorism may identify talking to yourself with thinking. However, to be consistent with its basic principles, radical behaviorism must hold that private behavior, hence thinking, is identical with covert muscular, speech movements (rather than proprioception of those movements). For teleological behaviorism, following Skinner (1938), all mental terms, including 'thinking,' stand for abstract, temporally extended patterns of overt behavior. Thus, for teleological behaviorism, talking to yourself, covert by definition, cannot be thinking.

show abstract

Still some explaining to do: A review of The Escape of the Mind by Howard Rachlin

Cited by 2 publications

References 38 publications

Suing for Peace in the War Against Mentalism

Suing for Peace in the War Against Mentalism

Is talking to yourself thinking?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About