more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 2388

[filed under theme 17. Mind and Body / B. Behaviourism / 2. Potential Behaviour ]

Full Idea

Another problem for Ryle (from Chisholm and Geach) is that no mental state could be defined by a single range of behavioural dispositions, independent of any other mental states. (Behaviour depends upon desires as well as beliefs).

Gist of Idea

Behaviour depends on desires as well as beliefs

Source

comment on Gilbert Ryle (The Concept of Mind [1949]) by David J.Chalmers - The Conscious Mind 1.1.2

Book Ref

Chalmers,David J.: 'The Conscious Mind' [OUP 1997], p.14


A Reaction

The defence of behaviourism is to concede this point, but suggest that behavioural dispositions come in large groups of interdependent sets, some relating to beliefs, others relating to desires, and each group leads to a behaviour.


The 13 ideas with the same theme [mind as a collection of dispositions to behave]:

Behaviour depends on desires as well as beliefs [Chalmers on Ryle]
You can't explain mind as dispositions, if they aren't real [Benardete,JA on Ryle]
You can't define real mental states in terms of behaviour that never happens [Geach]
Dispositions need mental terms to define them [Putnam]
The manifestations of a disposition need never actually exist [Armstrong]
Many sentences set up dispositions which are irrelevant to the meanings of the sentences [Cooper,DE]
Defining dispositions is circular [Harman]
Are dispositions real, or just a type of explanation? [Kim]
Dispositions are second-order properties, the property of having some property [Jackson/Pargetter/Prior, by Armstrong]
Behaviour requires knowledge as well as dispositions [Block]
In 'holistic' behaviourism we say a mental state is a complex of many dispositions [Kirk,R]
Disposition is a fundamental feature of reality, since basic particles are capable of endless possible interactions [Heil]
Dispositions say what we will do, not what we ought to do, so can't explain normativity [Miller,A]