Now, if we adhere firmly to the above conception of organisms as physical systems, it is really impossible for us to include any mental or psychical terms whatsoever in their supposed operations. However, it would be equally absurd to deny the existence of these psychical factors, since their reality is far more evident than that of the physical terms. The physical ideas are the outcome of an elaborate and frequently hazardous process of reasoning, whereas the psychological phenomena are always with us, no matter what our opportunities or capabilities may be in the domain of scientific thought. Consequently, it appears that the physical and the psychological data must be organized into logically distinct scientific systems, and that the problem of their interrelations must be considered as a third question, separate from that of the internal relationships of the terms within the two respective accounts. This method of treating the facts is given the name, psychophysical parallelism.
The parallelistic view, first proposed by Leibnitz, has been the working scheme of the majority of scientific psychologists since his time. However, it has aroused severe intellectual pains in philosophic minds, thus stimulating many a violent reaction against it. It is fundamentally opposed to the natural desire for a monistic explanation, and to the demand for continuity between processes which go on in synchronism with each other, as do those of body and mind. Behaviorists and exclusive physiologists turn their thoughts away from the mental side of the parallelism, in an endeavor to avoid recognition of its obnoxious features. Idealists and exclusive introspectionists find unity in a shut-in mentalism. Interactionists, and blurry thinkers in general, scoff at the scheme as an academic creation, and mix physical and psychological notions at random. But if we envisage all of the facts in their empirically demonstrable relationships, and in the light of the most firmly established modern theories, we cannot escape the parallelistic method. Other views lead to confusion or neglect. Nevertheless, the mystery which is generated is far from being insoluble, without entailing either of these undesirable features. Concerning such a solution, we shall have more to say later.
Showing posts with label psychological phenomena. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychological phenomena. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The General Nature of Physical Reality
In the first place, we must establish the notion of the organism--animal or human--as a purely physical mechanism, having a nature which renders it quite incapable of combining with any psychological entities or processes. Now, the average reader--even if he is a professional psychologist or physicist (unless he is both, and at the same time a philosopher)--may well fail to gather the full import of this statement; so that it becomes necessary to dilate to some extent upon the exact nature of physical being.
When we use the word, physical, we shall refer to something which is made up exclusively of units which the modern theoretical physicist regards as forming the foundation stones of the universe, and which is governed only by the elementary laws which the physicist conceives as applying to such units or their combinations. The layman thinks of the physical world in terms of hard and soft, colors and shades, sounds and smells, etc., but the modern physicist knows that these concepts are really psychological or, at any rate, are only symbols for the things with which his own thought is concerned. His world is made up of elecical particles arranged into geometrical, dynamic patterns, in physical space and time. Of these ultimate particles, there seem to be only two different kinds, namely, the electron and the proton, which appear to exist in about equal numbers in the universe. By virtue of their forces of electrical attraction, electrons and protons combine with one another to form a vast variety of very complex structures, which are capable of being described exclusively in geometrical and electromagnetic terms. These structures can be arranged into a hierarchy which, in increasing order of complexity, may be sketched as follows.
The electrons and protons combine, firstly, to generate a series of atoms which range from very simple to quite complicated forms, and which correspond approximately with the table of chemical elements. Each neutral atom contains an equal number of protons and electrons, but there are, nevertheless, residual electrical forces which make it possible for atoms to adhere to one another and thus to produce still more complex structures, known as molecules. The molecules correspond with compound chemical substances, of which there is a much wider variety than there is of chemical elements. Molecules and atoms are both supposed to be so small as to be entirely invisible, even when using the most high-powered of microscopes. However, molecules can combine with one another by a process which does not differ essentially from the one by which they, themselves, are formed--to yield particles or structures which may be visible even to the naked eye. The smallest of these are known as "colloidal particles," whereas larger ones constitute crystals. A still further aggregation of molecular, colloidal, or crystalline units gives rise to the inorganic and organic bodies with which we are most familiar in everyday life.
The distinction between animate and inanimate bodies, which corresponds to that between the organic and the inorganic, appears to the unscientific mind to involve a fundamental difference of kind. This persuasion is apparently due primarily to the seemingly spontaneous activities which are exhibited by organisms, whereas inorganic objects usually move only under the influence of an external force. It is also supported by the knowledge that in the case of our own organisms, the activity is closely correlated with certain psychological phenomena which seem to be its causes. However, since these psychological phenomena lie outside of the domain of physical investigation they cannot be regarded as furnishing really pertinent evidence, and we are without proof that psychical factors do not also accompany the existence and inactivity of inorganic bodies. Of course, the common sense conviction as to the uniqueness of living beings finds representation in certain quasi-scientific doctrines, which are called "vitalistic"; but by far the great majority of scientific thinkers resolutely reject these notions. They believe that the distinction between the organic and the inorganic is one of structure rather than of fundamental nature. The ultimate stuff and laws of the two classes of bodies are regarded as identical.
When we use the word, physical, we shall refer to something which is made up exclusively of units which the modern theoretical physicist regards as forming the foundation stones of the universe, and which is governed only by the elementary laws which the physicist conceives as applying to such units or their combinations. The layman thinks of the physical world in terms of hard and soft, colors and shades, sounds and smells, etc., but the modern physicist knows that these concepts are really psychological or, at any rate, are only symbols for the things with which his own thought is concerned. His world is made up of elecical particles arranged into geometrical, dynamic patterns, in physical space and time. Of these ultimate particles, there seem to be only two different kinds, namely, the electron and the proton, which appear to exist in about equal numbers in the universe. By virtue of their forces of electrical attraction, electrons and protons combine with one another to form a vast variety of very complex structures, which are capable of being described exclusively in geometrical and electromagnetic terms. These structures can be arranged into a hierarchy which, in increasing order of complexity, may be sketched as follows.
The electrons and protons combine, firstly, to generate a series of atoms which range from very simple to quite complicated forms, and which correspond approximately with the table of chemical elements. Each neutral atom contains an equal number of protons and electrons, but there are, nevertheless, residual electrical forces which make it possible for atoms to adhere to one another and thus to produce still more complex structures, known as molecules. The molecules correspond with compound chemical substances, of which there is a much wider variety than there is of chemical elements. Molecules and atoms are both supposed to be so small as to be entirely invisible, even when using the most high-powered of microscopes. However, molecules can combine with one another by a process which does not differ essentially from the one by which they, themselves, are formed--to yield particles or structures which may be visible even to the naked eye. The smallest of these are known as "colloidal particles," whereas larger ones constitute crystals. A still further aggregation of molecular, colloidal, or crystalline units gives rise to the inorganic and organic bodies with which we are most familiar in everyday life.
The distinction between animate and inanimate bodies, which corresponds to that between the organic and the inorganic, appears to the unscientific mind to involve a fundamental difference of kind. This persuasion is apparently due primarily to the seemingly spontaneous activities which are exhibited by organisms, whereas inorganic objects usually move only under the influence of an external force. It is also supported by the knowledge that in the case of our own organisms, the activity is closely correlated with certain psychological phenomena which seem to be its causes. However, since these psychological phenomena lie outside of the domain of physical investigation they cannot be regarded as furnishing really pertinent evidence, and we are without proof that psychical factors do not also accompany the existence and inactivity of inorganic bodies. Of course, the common sense conviction as to the uniqueness of living beings finds representation in certain quasi-scientific doctrines, which are called "vitalistic"; but by far the great majority of scientific thinkers resolutely reject these notions. They believe that the distinction between the organic and the inorganic is one of structure rather than of fundamental nature. The ultimate stuff and laws of the two classes of bodies are regarded as identical.
The General Nature of Neuromuscular Response
We should now be in a position to begin a direct attack upon our problem: the development of a clear and comprehensive theory of motivation. In order that the theory shall be comprehensive it must take cognizance of most of the concepts and principles which have been considered in our review of previous discussions. In order, however, to be clear it must avoid or improve upon the methods of thinking which have been used in some of these earlier expositions. In the first place, we must shun what may be called the fallacy of simplicity, under the influence of which we may try to show that some single factor in human life is actually responsible for the entire system. Secondly, we must avoid both the confusion of physiological with psychological concepts, and the rejection of either of these as unimportant. Perrin and Klein, in beginning their discussion of "the motivation of behavior" say: "The student will find it profitable at this point not to attempt to distinguish too closely between physiological and psychological phenomena." Without denying that this may be good advice to a beginner, it is the least profitable of all possible admonitions for the purposes which we now have in mind, namely, that of arriving at as complete an understanding as possible of the entire group of facts which relate to human or animal action.
We can approach the problem of motivation from either the psychological or the physiological side. Two distinct systems of facts have to be considered, each requiring methods which are appropriate to it alone; and finally the results of these two treatments must be coördinated into a psychophysical doctrine. Unfortunately, we are afflicted with approximately equivalent amounts of ignorance with respect to each side of the question. Certain conceptions and principles are very clearly established regarding the physiological mechanisms involved in behavior, but--sad to say--our information becomes almost nil when we consider the more complex nervous processes which must constitute the key to voluntary human reactions. It is just on this level of the motivational scheme that the introspective data of psychology, together with introspectively founded concepts and principles, supply the greatest amount of information. When it comes to the simpler processes, again, introspection becomes woefully weak. Thus in a certain sense, the physiological and psychological ideas are complementary to each other; but we should be very, very careful not to let this mislead us into supposing that we can combine them directly into a single system.
All things considered, it seems most advisable to make the first attack upon the problem of motivation from the physiological angle; but in discussing the general principles of the neuromuscular or response mechanism, we shall do well to indicate the relation in which consciousness, or the psychical system stands to the physiological one.
We can approach the problem of motivation from either the psychological or the physiological side. Two distinct systems of facts have to be considered, each requiring methods which are appropriate to it alone; and finally the results of these two treatments must be coördinated into a psychophysical doctrine. Unfortunately, we are afflicted with approximately equivalent amounts of ignorance with respect to each side of the question. Certain conceptions and principles are very clearly established regarding the physiological mechanisms involved in behavior, but--sad to say--our information becomes almost nil when we consider the more complex nervous processes which must constitute the key to voluntary human reactions. It is just on this level of the motivational scheme that the introspective data of psychology, together with introspectively founded concepts and principles, supply the greatest amount of information. When it comes to the simpler processes, again, introspection becomes woefully weak. Thus in a certain sense, the physiological and psychological ideas are complementary to each other; but we should be very, very careful not to let this mislead us into supposing that we can combine them directly into a single system.
All things considered, it seems most advisable to make the first attack upon the problem of motivation from the physiological angle; but in discussing the general principles of the neuromuscular or response mechanism, we shall do well to indicate the relation in which consciousness, or the psychical system stands to the physiological one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
