Hi TOK Folks, For any of you who remain interested in the cognitivism versus behaviorism debate in psychology, the attached 2011 chapter offers a good review, defending the behavioral perspective, but also showing how the move to 4e cognition results in bridging concepts. There should be no mistaking the fact that the UTOK readily solves this problem with its Map of Mind1,2,3<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iKq-JEN2KGuTF9MZdkvaWeZm4Sh1wmcV/view?usp=sharing>. First, we can note that this dispute is all about Mind1, which is about generating a neurocognitive functionalist account of mental behavior. The sides go round and round because they lack the right grammar and map of the right relations in the conceptual field. To advance the ball, it helps to step outside this arena and note that neither traditional behavioral nor neurocognitive approaches really address Mind2 (i.e., phenomenological consciousness). Here is David Chalmers recently explaining to Sam Harris on Making Sense this issue: It is useful to start by distinguishing the easy problems-which are basically about performance functions-from the hard problem which is about experience. [Some] easy problems are: How do we discriminate information in our environment and respond appropriately? How does the brain integrate information from different sources and bring it together to make a judgment and control our behavior? How do we voluntarily control our behavior to respond in a controlled way to the environment?... The easier problems fall within the standard methods of neuroscience and cognitive science What makes the hard problem of experience hard? Because it doesn't seem to be about behavior or about functions. You can in principle imagine explaining all my behavioral responses to a given stimulus and how my brain discriminates and integrates and monitors itself and controls my behavior. You can explain all that with, say a neural mechanism, but you won't have touched the central question, which is, "Why does it feel like something from the first-person point of view? Note that the difference Chalmers is talking about is the difference between Mind1 and Mind2 (and, of course, no one is even touching Mind3, where all of this exchange is taking place!). Bottom line, to first we need to weave the behavioral and neurocognitive accounts together in a functional/mental behaviorism. This makes sense because live cats behave differently than dead cats. Both can fall out of trees, but only one lands on its feet and takes off. Falling is a physical behavior. Landing on your feet and taking off is a mental behavior and YES the adjective makes all the difference. Doing so allows one to realize that neurocognitive functionalism can provide a general scientific ontological and epistemological frame for Mind1. However, as Chalmers notes, Mind2 is a different ballgame. Indeed, as I pointed out in this popular blog<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201910/there-are-two-hard-problems-consciousness-not-one>, Chalmers does not appropriately specify the nature of the problem, because he calls it the hard problem. There are in fact two hard problems associated with Mind2. One is epistemological in nature and the other is ontological. The epistemological problem stems from the language game of MENS<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202007/theory-mens-knowledge>. It only sees things and processes (i.e., behaviors) from an exterior epistemology, so it is, by its very grammar of justification, blind to interior subjects and their perspectives. The ontological problem is that we don't know the mechanism of how neurobiological activity generates the experiential point of view. The point here is that we can readily untangle the worldknot with the right system of understanding. Best, Gregg ___________________________________________ Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. Professor Department of Graduate Psychology 216 Johnston Hall MSC 7401 James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 (540) 568-7857 (phone) (540) 568-4747 (fax) Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. Check out the Theory Of Knowledge homepage at: https://www.toksociety.org/home<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_home&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=57e2I6uWglJ4JwStWjClCslCp37381OxvNIxockoINI&s=aRdOGoP0Bdt7IhOV8uIntjmwOR6o8wiDviSHJrpgpaM&e=> ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1