death of the mind.

Allan C Cybulskie allan.c.cybulskie at
Sun Jul 18 17:27:20 EST 2004

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at> wrote in message
news:6AuKc.70$Gf7.23587 at
> John Hasenkam wrote:
> Despite what Lester et al. say, behaviorism explains a lot; radical
> behaviorism is very careful to set limits on those explanations. Some
> people think these limits mean that RB denies the value of attempting to
> explanation outside those limits. I don't think so. It just claims that
> wt present we don't have the tools and methods to go beyond.

That would be a more methodological behaviourist approach, and both David
and Glen insist that they are not methodological behavourists.  David and
Glen seem to clearly insist that RB can explain pretty much everything of
interest, and Skinner did as well.

> Note that
> neurology and molecular biology appear to be going beyond those limts,
> but they don't. As Glen says "physiology mediates." That mediation is
> beginning to be analysed, but IMO that analysis is atill at the stage of
> gathering observations that may be useful.

I am finding it incredibly annoying the number of cognitive scientists who
want to reduce everything to neurology without having enough evidence to do
so or to do so in a manner that still allows us to talk meaningfully about
things like behaviour, values, emotions, etc, etc.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list