Ashley Zurita

Prof. Gary Ortega

Intro to Philosophy of Mind
7 September 2015
Composition 1

Why do humans behave the way they do? If a rat was shown to press on a button and
food would be dispensed, how would it learn to keep pressing the button? Fodor believes in
functionalism, which is neither dualist or materialist, that seeks to provide philosophical accounts
for abstraction and recognizes the possibility that artificial intelligence, disembodied spirits and
human beings all have mental states. Although In The Mind-Body Problem by Jerry A. Fodor,
it is apparent that radical behaviorism and dualism are the authors salient issues.
Both radical and logical behaviorists believe in the same theories just have different
expressions of the definition. Radical and logical behaviorism argues the idea of mental
causation is deeply ingrained in our everyday language and in our ways of understanding our
fellowmen and ourselves. They believe that humans have a habit or ability of applying their
behavior to knowledge, expectations and or religious beliefs. The example provided by Fodor is
that , Brown puts gas in his tank because he believes the car will not run without it. This
demonstrates that Brown has the ability to apply his knowledge which stimulates a thought, then
in turn causes a response to his behavior to put gas in the car or it will not run. Although Fodor
does not agree with these statements provided or its examples. Radical and logical behaviorism
also realizes that due to psychology maturing, mental states and its framework has grown to be
far more elaborate than many philosophers have assumed to be. They dispute that in the case of a
humans behavior psychological theories satisfying the methodological tenets of radical

behaviorism have proved largely sterile. Then they state that this was expected if the
postulated mental processes are real and causally effective.(page 2, Fodor)
Philosophers believe that mental causation is caused by knowledge, expectations and
beliefs. Although there have been past theories contradicting mental causations and the different
conclusions each philosopher has uncovered. Radical behaviorists are unemotional over their
overall conclusion involving behavior. 1920 John B. Watson radically suggested that behavior
does not have mental causes. He concluded that the behavior of an organism is its responses to
stimuli. Although proven incomplete thirty years later by B. F. Skinner, of Harvard University,
who elaborated on radical behaviorists views that the problem of explaining the nature of the
mind-body interaction vanishes; there is no such interaction. People, doctors, philosophers, and
scientists clash between ideas and theories surrounding stimuli and responses. One would believe
in stimuli and responses affecting our behavior due to an example which includes one being
thirsty. Thirst stimulates a chemical in your brain to look for something to drink so one may be
satisfied. A response is then triggered to locate a beverage and drink it physically. This affects a
behavior to either act dreary during the process of seeking a beverage or relaxed after one has
drank their beverage. Scientists point of view would be one of a cause and effect relationship to a
behavior. Others, like Fodor, believe that a person's past experiences, their recollections and their
environment affect their current behavior to certain situations that one is exposed to. Although
many philosophers joked about either choosing radical behaviorism or ghosts, one may view
these theories such as they did.
It becomes difficult to believe in something immaterial that has the ability to affect
something material due to basic laws of conservation of mass. Fodor does not address the
relationship between artificial intelligence and mental causation. Is artificial intelligence capable

of recollecting memories to create a stimuli and response to behavior under certain

circumstances. Either following Fodors ideas of applying their behavior to knowledge and
beliefs or Watsons theories of behavior not having mental causes. Artificial intelligence is a
difficult topic for philosophers to argue, either they agree that a.i. is capable of developing such
habits, or disagree that a.i. is a machine therefore it is not capable to feel pain or adapt mental
causations. Although Descartes would disagree and simply state that animals and artificial
intelligence are equally the same, that both can not feel pain or establish a behavior that is equal
to a human's capacity of memories. Although if Fodor were to discuss in detail about this topic,
he might of have not been able to correctly answer it due to science developing and altering
consistently.
Are we capable of determining the relationship between our thoughts and the behavior
we produce? One may have experienced a terrible childhood and due to its repercussions, one
becomes self-aware under certain circumstances. For example, if one was physically abused by
an adult or a parent, then they may experience resent in future relationships and shy away from
others. One may also experience hatred and aggressiveness in future relationships or with
strangers. Those who have been hurt physically or emotionally stimulate feelings under a
circumstance which then enables them to behave in a negative manner. This allows one to
understand why philosophers might agree with the theory of stimuli and response to have an
effect in behavior. Modern philosophers are constantly agreeing or proving philosophers and
their theories to be incorrect by applying science to their research. Using experimental groups
philosophers and scientists are able to determine the nature of mind-body problems. The quest
for philosophers to solve mind-body problems such as, behavior and mental causes, or artificial
intelligence and their capacity to understand and possibly replace a human and have the ability to

stimulate thoughts which in then lead to their behaviors are yet to be uncovered. Through
dedicated experiments and developed theories one may read about these answers in the future or
history will keep on repeating itself and philosophers will continue to disagree between each
other and not reach their goal to uncover mind-body problems.