Behaviorism and Identity Theory tackle the mind-body problem from different angles. Behaviorism focuses on observable actions, ignoring inner mental states. It explains behavior through conditioning and environmental factors, providing a scientific framework for studying learning.

Identity Theory, on the other hand, equates mental states with brain states. It argues that every thought or feeling corresponds to a specific neural process. This materialist approach aims to explain consciousness through neuroscience, bridging the gap between mind and brain.

Principles of Behaviorism

Observable Behavior and Conditioning

• Behaviorism emerged as a reaction to introspective methods in psychology emphasizing observable behavior rather than internal mental states
• Operant conditioning developed by B.F. Skinner explains how behaviors are shaped through reinforcement and punishment
• Classical conditioning pioneered by Ivan Pavlov demonstrates how neutral stimuli can elicit conditioned responses through association with unconditioned stimuli (salivating dogs)
• Law of effect proposed by Edward Thorndike states behaviors followed by satisfying consequences are more likely to be repeated
  • Example: A child receiving praise for cleaning their room is more likely to clean it again in the future
• Stimulus-response associations form the basis of behaviorist theories emphasizing the importance of observable input-output relationships
  • Example: A rat pressing a lever (response) when it sees a light (stimulus) to receive food

Determinism and Environmental Factors

• Behaviorists adopt a deterministic view of human behavior arguing all actions result from prior conditioning and environmental factors
• Aim to predict and control behavior by manipulating environmental variables rejecting the need for mentalistic explanations
• Focus on how external stimuli and consequences shape behavior rather than internal thoughts or feelings
  • Example: Studying how different reward schedules affect the frequency of a desired behavior in animals or humans
• Emphasize the role of learning and experience in shaping behavior rather than innate or genetic factors
  • Example: Explaining phobias as learned responses to specific stimuli rather than inherent fears

Behaviorism: Power vs Limitations

Explanatory Strengths

• Successfully explains many aspects of learning and behavior modification providing a scientific framework for understanding observable actions
• Particularly effective in developing therapeutic techniques such as systematic desensitization for treating phobias
  • Example: Gradually exposing a person with a fear of heights to increasingly high places while teaching relaxation techniques
• Provides clear, measurable methods for studying behavior and learning processes
  • Example: Using operant conditioning chambers (Skinner boxes) to study animal learning and motivation

Challenges and Criticisms

• Struggles to account for complex cognitive processes such as problem-solving creativity and language acquisition
• Faces challenges in explaining introspective experiences and the subjective nature of consciousness
• Rejection of mental states limits its ability to address questions of intentionality and the qualitative aspects of mental life
• Difficulty accounting for spontaneous behaviors that occur without apparent external stimuli or reinforcement
  • Example: A person suddenly having a creative idea or insight without clear environmental triggers
• Critics argue behaviorism provides an incomplete picture of human psychology by neglecting the role of internal mental processes and subjective experiences
  • Example: Inability to fully explain how individuals can learn complex behaviors through observation without direct reinforcement (social learning theory)

Identity Theory: Mind & Brain

Core Principles

• Posits mental states are identical to brain states asserting a one-to-one correspondence between specific mental events and neurophysiological processes
• Claims every type of mental state (pain, belief, desire) is identical to a specific type of brain state or neural activity
  • Example: The experience of seeing red is identical to a particular pattern of neural activation in the visual cortex
• Argues for the ontological reduction of mental phenomena to physical processes eliminating the need for dualistic explanations of mind and body
• Distinguishes between type identity (general mental states correspond to specific brain states) and token identity (particular instances of mental states are identical to particular brain states)

Materialist Approach to Consciousness

• Supports the principle of causal closure in physics maintaining all physical effects have sufficient physical causes
• Aims to provide a materialist account of consciousness explaining subjective experiences in terms of objective neurological processes
  • Example: Explaining the feeling of pain as identical to the firing of C-fibers in the nervous system
• Argues advances in neuroscience will eventually allow for the complete mapping of mental states onto brain states
  • Example: Using fMRI scans to correlate specific thought patterns with brain activity in different regions

Identity Theory: Arguments for & Against

Supporting Arguments

• Provides a parsimonious explanation of mind-body interaction avoiding the problems associated with dualism
• Aligns with scientific naturalism and the success of neuroscientific research in correlating mental phenomena with brain activity
  • Example: Studies showing how damage to specific brain areas affects corresponding cognitive functions
• Offers a unified framework for understanding mental and physical phenomena within a single ontological category
  • Example: Explaining both physical and mental causation through the same neurophysiological mechanisms

Challenges and Objections

• Issue of qualia argues subjective experiences cannot be fully captured by physical descriptions of brain states
  • Example: The "what it's like" to see red cannot be completely explained by describing neural activity
• Multiple realizability objection proposed by Hilary Putnam contends the same mental state can be realized by different physical states across species or even artificial systems
  • Example: Pain could potentially be realized in silicon-based AI systems with very different physical structures from human brains
• Kripke's modal argument challenges identity theory by suggesting mental states and brain states have different modal properties
  • Example: We can imagine pain existing without C-fibers firing but cannot imagine C-fibers firing without pain
• Explanatory gap argument questions whether a complete physical account can ever fully explain the subjective first-person nature of conscious experience
  • Example: How the subjective experience of tasting chocolate emerges from objective neural processes
• Defenders of identity theory respond to multiple realizability by proposing species-specific or structure-specific identities or by adopting a more flexible token identity approach
  • Example: Arguing that pain in humans is identical to C-fiber firing while allowing for different physical realizations in other species