The Plausibility of Analytic Functionalism Essay

Theories have been composed and exposed by various philosophers to clarify their reasoning about the mind. Dualism, Behaviorism, and Identity Theory, are well-known theories supported by well-written explanations. A modern theory, Functionalism provides ample insight to the main problem philosophers deal with, the mind/body problem.

In this essay, I am going to write a response to the objection raised by the functionalists towards identity theory. Identity theory is a form of physicalism; it states that a particular mental state is identical to a particular physical state of body and brain, for instance mental sensation such as pain is simply just the firing of C-fibres (Smart, 1959). This is a reductionist view as it reduces our psychological state to a materialistic and physical form. A prominent objection against identity theory is Functionalism, in which the main advocate Hilary Putnam stated that identity theory is too narrow as it ignores multiple realisability. In the next paragraph, I will write a little more about functionalism, and in the end, I will ultimately conclude that functionalism is a better theory than identity theory.

In this approach we see the theories of psychology that see the human mind function based upon the interaction of forces and drives within the mind, normally this means unconscious thoughts, but it also includes looking at the different structures of the personality.

Psychology, due to its complexity can be approached in a variety of ways. To help us understand the human mind, behaviourist and psychodynamic approaches have helped us understand the alternative outlooks in the science of mind and behaviour. Both approaches can be examined by the means of theoretical assumptions and methodology.

Theories have been composed and exposed by various philosophers to explain their understanding about the mind. Dualism, Behaviorism and Identity Theory are well-known theories supported by well-written explanations. A modern theory, Functionalism has been proposed that provides great insight to the main problem philosophers deal with, the mind/body problem.

Behaviorists emerged from frustration with psychoanalysts emphasis on the unconscious due to their desire to focus only on what was observable. The mind of course not being something that is capable of

Ned Block, in his article “Trouble with Functionalism”, creates a thought experiment to serves as a counterexample to functionalism. Functionalism states that the mind and its mental states are only comprised of the functional role they serve, and not of the physical medium it occurs in. Block’s thought experiment, while intriguing, is ultimately a flawed comparison that wrongly applies human-centric prejudice to the definition of a mental state, and thus, cannot be applied to our mental life.

In this paper, I will argue that functionalism, specifically empirical functionalism, can explain mental states, and is thus true. Functionalism is a philosophical theory which states that inputs, outputs, and other mental states defines a mental state (109). An empirical functionalist defines mental states in terms of their casual relations as determined by psychological theories (119). Empirical functionalists prefer cognitive science theories (119).

Behaviorism has been a topic of many controversies in the early stages of developing. This paper will present a synthesis of several articles discussing behaviorisms and its development through various schools of theories, in addition known researchers and conclusions. The first article that illustrates behaviorism is, “Behaviorism at 100” by Ledoux (2012), which details the last 50 years of the study of behaviorism. The next article is “Behaviorism” by Moore (2011), maps the beginning of behaviorism with B.F.Skinner and addressing functionalism and structuralism. The article named “Psychology as the behaviorist views it”, written by Watson (1913) put his emphasis the aspects of psychology and how behaviorist view introspection. Green (2009) article “Darwinian Theory functionalism and the First American psychological revolution”, is very adamant to have is readers to know that functionalism was the foundation that behaviorism was built. Clark (2004) article “The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning”, give insight into classical conditioning abroad and in the United States. The last article named “Little Albert’s alleged neurological impairment” written by Digdon , Powell and Harris (2014), focus on ethical concerns and that may have been overlooked. The synthesis paper will provide behaviorism and conclusions that can draw overall messages from the articles mentioned above.

Many ideas were shared between Watson, Tolman, and Skinner who all played a role in the forming of behaviorism. They did, however, differ on some of their beliefs as well as their methods of study. At this time, methods of studying psychology as well as psychology in general were in the developing stages. Watson was largely credited with the foundation of behaviorism, however, he was by no means the only one to make contributions. There has been some debate as to whether Watson’s contributions were enough to make him the “founder of behaviorism.” It is important to examine contributions from several of the early

Functionalism, one of the most influential and widespread theories of mind of our day, proposes a model of human behaviour based on the way certain inputs are processed when the mind is in a given state, to yield certain outputs. This theory concerns itself only what mental states do, rather than the substance with which they are made, or whether they exist at all; this is called ‘multiple realizability’. In other words, the theory is ontologically modest, or flexible, and this enables functionalism to stay compatible with Cartesian dualism or monisms like materialism, an advantage when other theories lose followers due to their ontological preconceptions. The other notable strength functionalism claims is that it avoids some of the pitfalls of its counterpart theory, behaviourism. However each of these apparent strengths has flaws, both in and of themselves and in comparison to other theories of mind. These strengths and their flaws will be assessed in this essay, but allow me first to outline what the functionalist theory of mind proposes.

“Behaviorism is predominantly concerned with evident and measurable aspects of human behavior. In defining behaviour, behaviourist-learning theories emphasise changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response links made by the learner. Behaviour is directed by stimuli. An individual selects one response instead

Although functionalism is the more popular perspective, it is not flawless. There are conflicts of interest about the relations between the school and society. The main problem with functionalism is that it tends to emphasize the social needs of society over the individual’s need. Robert Merton, a critic of functionalism comments that “because many functionalisms have assumed that every social practice and institution must be understood in terms of its adaptive function for the society as a whole, they have tended to give a primary value to existing social forms.” (p. 34) This critique states that the social institutions are adapting for the society. The society is the independent factor and the social institutions are dependent upon it.

Behaviorism has often been described as too predictable, for neglecting the role of internal states including memory, emotions, thoughts, and motivation in individuals’ behavior. Similarly, behaviorism postulates that all behaviors can be observed when in fact subjective processes such as thinking, and feeling are subjective measures. The method of introspection is also rejected by proponents of behaviorism despite its importance in understanding individuals subjective experience of phenomena. For instance, how individuals perceive the experience of having a headache. Furthermore, the role of biological influences on individuals’ behaviors is neglected

Functionalists tend to be restricted to inputs’ specification, as well as the outputs which are plausibly an integral of common-sense capacity (knowledge); Psychofunctionalists, however, are not under such restriction. Even if both the Functionalists and Psychofunctionalism emphasize on physical, or nonmental-specification over inputs and outputs, the requirement by Functionalists remains the externally observable classifications, for example, inputs whose characteristics assume the terms of the present objects within the organisms vicinity, expressed in body parts’ movements. On the other hand, Psychofunctionalists are at liberty to present a specification between inputs and outputs, assuming the internal parameters’ terms; for example, signals in input, as well as output neurons.