Reply to Baars

Abstract My claim that Skinner believed in psychological atoms is actually strengthened by Baars' remark that Skinner's behaviorist atoms could take a variety of physical forms. ( "A rat in a box could depress the bar by sitting on it, by using its paws, or biting it: these physically different responses were functionally equivalent operant behaviors.") Baars is correct that Pavlov, unlike Skinner, thought that psychological atoms were identical to certain physiological items. But Skinner, as a non-reductive atomist, thought he could permit his psychological atoms to have a variety of physical forms. He still believed that even though each S-R connection was not really physical, it could nevertheless be understood as being independent of all other S-R connections ,and without reference to the laws of physics. It doesn't really make sense to speak of something as being both ontologically determined by its function, and ontologically independent, but philosophical clarity was not Skinner's strong point.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified (fix it)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,701
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Only published papers are available at libraries

    Similar books and articles

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-01-28

    Total downloads

    3 ( #201,930 of 549,090 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #63,317 of 549,090 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums