Whenever I read Darwinians and atheists, I find myself in agreement with their arguments. As Galileo said, the role of religion should be to determine how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go. Put differently (and in a way that doesn’t presume there is a heaven), only critical thinking will help us discern the nature of reality so that we can base our conduct on actuality rather than fantasy, but the question of values and how we should behave is separate from that.
What I cannot understand is the Darwinians’ and atheists’ confusion about consciousness, a problem that B. F. Skinner solved 75 years ago. What is especially perplexing is the fact that Skinner’s account of consciousness is a perfect analogy to the Darwinian account of life. I don’t know why E.O. Wilson calls Skinner (but not Darwin) a “greedy reductionist” for believing that all operant behavior evolves under contingencies of what works just as anatomy, physiology, and instinctive behavior evolve under contingencies of survival and reproduction.
Skinner called his behaviorism “radical,” (i.e., thorough or complete) because he rejected then-behaviorism’s lack of interest in private events. Just as Galileo insisted that the laws of physics would apply in the sky just as much as on the ground, Skinner insisted that the laws of psychology would apply just as much to the psychologist’s inner life as to the rat’s observable life.
Consciousness has nothing to do with the so-called and now-solved philosophical problem of mind-body duality, or in current terms, how the physical brain can give rise to immaterial thought. The answer to this pseudo-problem is that even though thought seems to be immaterial, it is not. Thought is no more immaterial than sound, light, or odor. Even educated people used to believe, a long time ago, that these things were immaterial, but now we know that sound requires a material medium to transmit waves, light is made up of photons, and odor consists of molecules. Thus, hearing, seeing, and smelling are not immaterial activities, and there is nothing in so-called consciousness besides hearing, seeing, and smelling (and tasting and feeling). Once you learn how to see and hear things that are there, you can also see and hear things that are not there, just as you can kick a ball that is not there once you have learned to kick a ball that is there. Engaging in the behavior of seeing and hearing things that are not there is called imagination. Its survival value is obvious, since it allows trial and error learning in the safe space of imagination. There is nothing in so-called consciousness that is not some version of the five senses operating on their own. Once you have learned to hear words spoken in a way that makes sense, you can have thoughts; thinking is hearing yourself make language; it is verbal behavior and nothing more.
What would really be startling and, in turn, would make me question my scientific worldview would be if the mind were capable of doing even one thing that the senses can’t. If we could, for example, smell things in our imagination even though our bodies were incapable of smelling, that would change everything. If there were a sixth sense that was not merely an example of the five senses, I’d believe in a mind that was different from “private behavior.” But there isn’t.
In my imagination, you are disappointed by the simplicity of Skinner’s explanation of consciousness. You intuit something beyond or beneath hearing, seeing, etc., in your own consciousness. Your intuition is wrong, but your disappointment is real. I think one of the main reasons people resent science is that people think about complicated things long and hard, sometimes for centuries or millennia, and then science’s explanation is ludicrously simple. How the stars go? The earth is spinning. When the thing explained is you or something you care about, a simple explanation can irritate.
Michael Karson, Ph.D. 
This is great. Really enjoyed it. Matt will read it too. I recently finished The God Delusion. One of the chapters that most caught my attention was the one on terminal illness and religion, including euthanasia or suicide. Maybe because this chapter was near the end so it’s more fresh, but I also felt like a lot of it resonated with the work in the hospital and the religious population here.
As an aside, how was the celebration, and how was it with Janna’s parents?
When do you find out if your paper is accepted for the conference here?
Lisa
Sent from my iPhone
Thanks for the post. The evolutionary advantage of imagination makes sense. I really appreciated “Beyond Freedom and Dignity.” I found after reading it that most of my protests related to Skinner’s ideas about consciousness arose from wanting to be special.
In a related note (only because it got me thinking of the practical application of Skinner’s work in the process of psychotherapy): I have been doing this interesting couples seminar at the VA using ACT and FAP to help couples better reinforce and shape intimacy enhancing behavior. It has been pretty successful, but only with clients that want to “peak behind the curtain” and see The Great and Powerful Oz. I have started to realize that some clients really want to (need to?) believe in magic, and want to work with the therapist-as-magician. While I thought couples would like to know how the magic tricks are done, some people do not. Maybe this relates to your idea of framing, and the type of frame that is the most workable given someone’s history. I am just not sure I have a real map to tell when clients would benefit from “leaning into the magic of therapy” and when it would be helpful to see behind the scenes (or backstage as you call it?). Maybe this relates to disclosure as well?
For other readers, “FAP” (functional analytic psychotherapy) is the latest behavioristic attempt to account for psychoanalytic therapy. Many behaviorists act as if an idea cannot work until it is put into behavioristic language. FAP is about where psychoanalysis was in 1960. When they figure out how to translate object relations into behavioral language (think: peculiar reinforcers), they’ll develop a new behavior therapy with a new three-letter acronym, maybe RPP (relational paradigm psychotherapy).
Do you think calling it “magic” may influence your attitude toward what you are discussing? I remember thinking that my clients would be better off spending their time reading Horney than seeing me, as if what’s needed is information.