Beat poet defends the scientific method
Locked
12
12
Beat poet defends the scientific method
 
|
I can imagine Doug putting on an Aussie accent and ranting like this:
Somewhat NSFW, but a spirited defense of the scientific method nonetheless.
-- R ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
"A small crack occurs in my diplomacy dyke"
Beautiful. <snapping fingers>
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote: I can imagine Doug putting on an Aussie accent and ranting like this: -- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
The video is hilarious.
I hope you all recognise that Mishkin (the Ranter) is just a behaviorist.
I have never understood how any scientist could be anything BUT a behaviorist.
How is banging on about mind any different from banging on about soul, or aura, or the Great Unknown?
Nick
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
Nick, Robert, et al,
Tim Minchin is amazingly funny. He is primarily a song writer, and is certainly the best novelty song writer to come along in quite a while (with perhaps Stephen Lynch as a close second when he can stay in character). Tim is a skeptic and intellectual in general, but I'm not sure he is a behaviorist in the strong sense. If you just want to enjoy some of his geekier songs, you should check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaid72fqzNE <- about relationships http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP9pnSXhibw <- about music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw <- about racial tension He also does nerd-friendly / intellectual stand-up some times. For thoughts on evolution, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXl68NF_uI Enjoy, Eric P.S. I was first exposed to Tim through his appearance on Graham Norton. It is still one of my favorite spots of his, though not nearly as intellectual as the above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuqEzmg304 On Sun, May 2, 2010 02:52 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick
Let me try this on(e)... it's because the brain is the physical structure within which our thinking processes occur and collectively those processes we call the 'mind'. I don't see a way to say the same thing or anything remotely parallel, about soul, aura, the Great Unknown and such. Is there an argument to say that the brain, or the thinking processes don't exist in the same way we can argue that the others don't (or might not)? Thanks Robert On 5/2/10 12:52 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Robert,
You accuse Nick of talking about "the brain", when he was talking about "the mind". The most basic tenant of behaviorism is that all questions about the mind are ultimately a question about behavior. Thus, while some behaviorists deny the existence of mental things, that is not a necessary part of behaviorism. On the other hand, the behaviorist must deny that the mind is made up any special substance, and they must deny that the mental things are somehow inside the person (hence the comparison with soul, auras, etc.). If the behaviorist does not deny tout court that mental things happen, what is he to do? One option is to claim that mental things are behavioral things, analyzed at some higher level of analysis, just as biological things are chemical things analyzed at some higher level of analysis. So, to answer your question: There IS a brain, and the brain does all sorts of things, but it does not do mental things. Mental things happen, but they do not happen "in the brain". As Skinner would put it, the question is: What DOES go on in the skull, and what is an intelligible way to talk about it? The obvious answer is that the only things going on in the skull are physiological. For example, if one asks why someone chose to go left instead of right at a stop sign, one might get an answer in terms of the brain: "He turned left because his frontal cortex activated in such and such a way." However, that is no answer at all, because the firing of those neurons is a component part of the turning left! Ultimately, the explanation for the choice must reference conditions in our protagonists past that built him into the type of person who would turn left under the current conditions. In doing so, our explanation will necessarily give the conditions that lead to a person whose brain activates in such and such a way under the conditions in question. Put another way: To say that he chose to turn left because a part of his brain chose to turn left misses the point. It anthromorphizes your innards in a weird way, suggests homunculi, and introduces all sorts of other ugly problems. Further, it takes the quite tractable problem of understanding the origins of behavior and transforms it into the still intractable problem of understanding the origins of organization in the nervous system. Neuroscience is a great field of study, and it is thriving. Thus, people hold out hope that one day we will know enough about nerve growth, etc., that the origin of neuronal organization will become tractable. One day they will, but when that day comes it will not tell us much about behavior that we didn't already know, hence they won't tell us much about the mind we didn't already know. Or at least, so sayith some behaviorists, Eric On Sun, May 2, 2010 05:09 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]> wrote: Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Eric, Can you provide an example of an acceptable behaviorist answer to your question about why a person turned left instead of right. By example, I'm looking for something more concrete than "the explanation for the choice
must reference conditions in our protagonists past that built him into
the type
of person who would turn left under the current conditions." What might such an explanation look like?
-- Russ Abbott ______________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles cell: 310-621-3805 blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ______________________________________ On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 4:03 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Russ,
The behaviorist's point, first and foremost, would involve comparing the questions "Why did he choose to turn left?" with the question "Why did he turn left?" They are the same question, the behaviorist claims, except perhaps, at best, that the first question does a little bit more to specify a reference group of alternative circumstances and behaviors that our explanation needs to distinguish between. For example, we might read it as saying "Why did he turn left under circumstances in which other people turn right?" As for the acceptable answer to such a question... well... there are several varieties of behaviorism, and the acceptable answers would vary. The stereotypical villain of Intro Psych stories is a behaviorist who insists on explanations only in terms of immediate stimuli. However, those are mostly mythical creatures. Most behaviorists have a bias towards developmental explanations, and as members of this list will readily recognize, behavioral development is complex. The most standard forms of behaviorism make heavy use of drooling dogs and lever-pressing rats as their primary metaphors. In this case we might prefer a maze-running rat. Upon his first encounter with choice point C, which has vertical stripes, rat 152 turns left. Why? Because, in the past, this rat has been reinforced (i.e., got to the peanut butter faster) when it turned left (the critical behavior) at intersections that have vertical stripes (a discriminative stimuli). The nature of the contingencies and stimuli can be quite complex, but we have lots of data about how those complexities reliably produce certain patterns of behavior. Similarly, we might argue that the person turns left because in his past, under circumstances such as these, he has been reinforced for turning left. What circumstances, well, I would have to elaborate the example a lot more: When following directions which state "turn left at the next light" and at "an intersection with a light". The individual's choice is thus explained by his long-term membership in a verbal community that rewards people for doing certain things (turning left) under certain conditions consisting of a combination of discriminative stimuli (which are complex, but clearly possible to define in sufficient detail for these purposes). This training started very young, for my daughter it formally started at about 1 and a half with my saying "look right, look left, look right again" at street corners. -- Admitted, the above explanation for the person's behavior is a bit hand-wavy and post-hoc, but the explanations for the rat's behavior is neither. Behaviorism, loosely speaking consists of two parts, a philosophy of behaviorism and an application of behaviorism (applied behavior analysis). We could take our person, subject him to empirical study, and determine the conditions under which he turns left. This would reveal the critical variables making up a circumstance under which such turns happen. The science also allows us to determine some aspects of the past-history based on the subjects present responses. Further, just as we built our rat, we could build a person who would turn left under such circumstances, and for that person, all the conditions would be known and no hand-waving or further investigation would be necessary. The fact that we usually cannot perform these kinds of investigation, is no excuse for pretending we wouldn't get concrete results if we did. -- In the absence of an observed past history, the behaviorist would rather speculate about concrete past events than about imaginary happenings in a dualistic other-realm. Personally, I think many behaviorists overdo the role of conditioning. I have a bias for a more inclusive view of development, such as that advanced by the epigeneticists of the 60's and 70's, the kind that leads directly into modern dynamic systems work. Those behaviorists I most like recognize the limitations of conditioning as an explanation, but argue that conditioning is particularly important in the development of many behaviors that humans particularly care about. Pairing the verbal command "left" with the contingency of reinforcement for turning left, they argue, is just as arbitrary pairing the visual stimuli "red light" with the contingency of reinforcement for pressing the left lever in the skinner box. A reasonable position, but I've never been completely sold. I will admit though that conditioning is important in unexpected places - you cannot even explain why baby geese follow the object they imprint on without operant (skinner-box style) conditioning. How was that? Eric P.S. Returning to Robert's query: It should be obvious that the above explanation, if accepted as an explanation for the behavior, is also an explanation for all concurrent neural happenings. On Sun, May 2, 2010 07:34 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I have two problems with it.
-- Russ On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:08 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Behaviorism [was Beat poet]
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Eric
So you (or perhaps behaviorists) don't want to join me (and possibly many others) in calling the collective mental processes the mind. Then what about a scenario in which in a sensory deprivation tank a person mentally works out the solution to a mathematical problem he/she has never solved before. Some time later after removing him/herself from the tank, writes down the solution for all to see. Where did the mental thing happen if not in the brain as a process of the mind? Where is the observable behavior? Isn't the development of the solution the mind in action? Also Behaviorism is too restrictive a term for scientists or anyone else for that matter, in my mind, ugly problems or not! Perhaps it all semantics. In the mean time I still know of no similar parallel models for aura, soul etc. Robert C On 5/2/10 5:03 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Behaviorism [was Beat poet]
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
i would appeal to the history of right and left turning and its consequences in the life of the organism.
Russ,
At some point we might want to appeal to the neural events that accompanied these events to answer the question, how does the nervous system mediate the interaction between the organim and it's environment. Something like that.
Eric will do better when he has time but he has classes to teach and children raise.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Nick,
I don't think you addressed my two objections. But you did raise another issue. How do behaviorists distinguish between what you call "the organism" and what you call "it's environment"? I don't say that lightly. As you know, I think the issue of how to identify entities is fundamental. For behaviorists, I think it's even worse. If everything is on the surface, how does one distinguish inside (i.e., the organism) from outside (i.e., its environment)? If it's all essentially reducible to the underlying physics it seems to me it's hard to draw that line. -- Russ On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Behaviorism [was Beat poet]
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Robert C.,
i wouldnt mind calling collective mental processes a mind because, to me, a mental process is a pattern of interaction between an organism and an environment; but i thought you were calling brain processes a mind.
is your thinker-in-a-vat anesthetized and paralyzed?
To me (Russ), inside means inside the skin. There is nothing else, really, for it to mean.
have to go to bed,
N Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Russ,
Good questions. These are indeed "obvious vulnerabilities" that behaviorists are familiar with. Of course, if I just said what I thought, then the answers would seem more solid, but I will try to give a flavor of the broader reality of the field, not just my opinion. Your Q1: How big (or small) is a behavior? -- This is a major historic difference between different people's behaviorisms (a phrasing I assume is equivalent to saying that X is a major historic difference between different people's versions of quantum theory). Watson, for example, the sort-of founder of behaviorism, really wanted to talk about things like the flexing or not flexing of individual muscles. This was criticized, even by most behaviorists, as "muscle twitchism", though a few still like it. The modern analysis, following from Skinner, uses the "operant" as the level of analysis. An operant is, roughly, a set of movements that do something, like "press a lever". The justification of this level of analysis is largely that regularity seems to appear at that level. We can predict and control the rate of lever pressing. In fact, as will appeal to the complexity crowd, we can predict and control the rate of level pressing even when there is quite extensive variation in the underlying muscle movements! I guess it is a bit of a pragmatist thing - you do science where you see that science can be done. Your Q1b: What about conceptual stuff? -- It is just another thing about behavior. How do you know when someone else understands a concept? You get them to behave in certain ways. How do you know when you understand a concept? You get yourself to behave in certain ways. We can quibble about exactly what ways, but ultimately typing the word "right" is no different than any other five-part behavior, and so your typing 'h' is, presumably, not qualitatively different than a rat pressing a bar labeled "h" if I have reinforced it in the past for pressing the pattern "r" "i" "g" "h" "t". Pigeons can tell the difference between different cubists, between early and late Picasso, between pictures with people in them and pictures without people in them (famously, sometimes better than the experimenter who selected the slides), etc. So, to the extent that 'cubist' vs. 'impressionist' is a concept, behaviorists can explain how people get concepts perfectly well. Your Q2: How do you define reinforcement? -- Again, there are several methods. The biggest problem is that it is easy to slip into circularity. Skinner's solution is the most popular today, and has certain virtues over the alternative. Skinner wants to define reinforces by their effects. X is a reinforcer if behavior Y increases in future frequency when it is followed by X. In that sense, "reinforcer" is a description of the effect, not an explanation for the effect. Thus, in applied behavior analysis, it is common to be stuck trying to fix a problem behavior you know nothing about the origin of. In a "functional analysis" you would try removing consequences of that behavior one at a time until you identified the factor(s) that reinforced the behavior. Thus the reinforcer is identified empirically, rather than theoretically. -- to appeal to physics again, Einstein would tell us that gravity is not some separate thing that causes objects in a falling elevator to converge, gravity is simply the observable fact that objects a falling elevator converge. Your Q2b: How do you distinguish Organism from Environment -- This question can get very deep very fast in ambiguous cases. Let's face it though, most cases are not very ambiguous. When I am studying a rat in a Skinner Box: The organism that fleshy and bony thing that I pick up out of its cage and walk over to the Skinner box. The Environment is the inside of a Skinner box. Most cases we deal with on a practical basis are similarly well defined. I don't need a verbal self-report by the rat to know that food reinforces its lever presses. I similarly do not need at any point to look inside the rat. The question of whether or not food reinforces lever presses (under such and such conditions) is a simple and straightforward scientific question about behavior. Keep um coming if you got more, this is fun, Eric On Sun, May 2, 2010 10:44 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley
Robert,
I think you have made the bait and switch covert. You are now saying "mental processes" and "mind", but I suspect you are still thinking "brain processes" and "brain". Putting that aside: This deserves some sort of very through response I am not mentally prepared for at the moment (I blame Russ, whose email I saw first). As a semi-cop-out though, I will say that, when dealing with any attempt at scientific theory, there are easy problems and hard problems. That is, there are cases the theory will deal with almost effortlessly, and there are cases that will be tough. However, the hope is that the tough cases can ultimately be answered in a manner substantially similar to the easy questions. Lets redivide our competitors into two camps, those who think mental things are the sine qua non cause of behavioral things, and those who do not. Causal-mentalism seems well suited to answer the challenge involving the derivation in the deprivation chamber. Behaviorism seems well suited to explain simple behaviors. Ultimately, I suspect behaviorism will find success attacking the question of "what exactly happens in the deprivation chamber". In several hundred years, causal-mentalism has had little success explaining simple behavior. In fact, if you try to explain how the "mental" derivation becomes the "written proof" on the paper, you will see the mess. Again: To say that someone turned left because they "chose to turn left" or because a part of their brain "chose to turn left" misses the point, and doesn't answer the question. If I could build a rat that floated in a deprivation chamber, then got out and typed out a proof on a set of keys, the explanation for that behavior would be a description of the circumstances under which I reared the rat. The explanation cannot be found in the rat's head, because the occurrences in the rat's head are a component part of the larger pattern to be explained. Nothing changes if I substitute "person" for "rat" in the prior two sentences. Eric On Mon, May 3, 2010 01:07 AM, "Robert J. Cordingley" <[hidden email]> wrote: EricEric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
Nick,
So here's the crux? Where does thinking occur? Or what is it that goes on inside our heads? From a systems standpoint, our environment (outside our head) can be seen as one system and our brain and everything (thinking, brain processes, mental processing, dreaming, whatever...) going on inside it is another system. Between the two are input and output devices. Thinking can still occur if all the input and output devices are shutdown as is attempted, but perhaps not completely achieved, in a sensory deprivation tank. The transaction, to which you refer, is, to me, an interaction between the systems. Thinking can still continue without a transaction occurring. It may follow a transaction (interaction) or precede one. Thinking is obviously influenced by the transactions (interactions), as in learning. Isolate the thinking center from the environment and thinking can continue in the thinking center. Isolate the environment from a thinking center and thinking doesn't continue in the environment. The collective thinking processes are called the mind. The mind is to the brain as vision is to the eyes (except 40% of the brain is involved in vision processing). So what's wrong with this type of definition? (I'm back to semantics or may be it's ontologies). I don't have such a succinct definition (or perhaps it's a model) for soul and aura and that's why 'banging on about mind' is different. Perhaps tho' in your domain of expertise you'd prefer to define these terms differently, then these definitions should be made clear before we begin debating or starting the argument! Perhaps tho' your provocations have a different objective not yet shared? Thanks Robert On 5/2/10 11:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Beat poet defends the scientific method
|
|
Nice way to put it Robert.
Nick, is it really your position that nothing goes on inside the head? How can you take that position? Lots of neuron firings take place inside the head. I imagine you aren't denying that -- only that neuron firings do not constitute "thinking" -- whatever that means. I imagine that saying what that means is where you and Robert (and I) disagree. But I've been around this track with you before. I'll leave it to Robert this time. He seems to be making good progress. -- Russ On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Robert J. Cordingley <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Thanks for your answers Eric. I like your answer to Q1 that the unit of observation is at the functional level -- where functional refers to an act that changes the relationship between an entity and its environment.
Since almost every change can be divided into smaller changes, that doesn't really solve the problem. The answer also depends on the ability to characterize what an entity is. But for now, I'm satisfied. With regard to the issue of reinforcement, I'm not so willing to go along. You said, X is a reinforcer if behavior Y increases in future frequency when it
is followed by X. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't tell me why X is a reinforcer of Y. It makes the being-a-reinforcer-of a primitive relation. As you said,
In that sense, "reinforcer" is a description of the
effect,
not an explanation for the effect. Do you really want to leave it at that? Science is definitely happy to come up with empirically establishable relationships. But it never stops there. I always attempts to ask why that relationship holds. Are you really saying that behaviorists refuse to ask that question? For example, consider the implications of the fact that the reinforcer occurs after the thing being reinforced? How can that possibly be? It seems to imply that the entity being reinforced has a mechanism that enables it to relate the reinforcement to the action being reinforced. Otherwise how could the reinforcement have any effect at all since it follows the act being reinforced. So right there one seems to be postulating some sort of internal mechanisms that are both (a) able to remember (understood loosely and not necessarily conceptually) the act that was done so that the subsequent reinforcement can be related to it as well as (b) change the frequency or conditions under which that act is performed. One should presumably then ask how those internal mechanisms work. -- Russ On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:27 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Charles
Damn, these are longer than I intend.
Sorry. The question "How can you be satisfied without explaining WHY X is a reinforcer?" Sloppy answer: Look, buddy. One thing at a time. Yes, in some sense a scientist is never satisfied - as each answer leads to new questions. On the other hand, to make that logic work, you need to accept that some things ARE answers. So, only if you are satisfied with my definition of what a reinforcer is, do we get to go on to ask why it is. Wherever that quest takes us, it doesn't change the fact that we have a perfectly good definition for a reinforcer, and that the definition is at a behavioral level. So, for example, were we to find that all reinforcers activate a certain part of the brain (WHICH THEY DON'T, but we'll pretend), we would NOT redefine reinforcers as "things that activate that part of the brain". We might let "activates that part of the brain" be part of a particular kind of explanation for reinforcement (the mechanistic or material cause) -- well, some might. Others would point out, as I have done before, that when you ask "why is X a reinforcer?" you would need to explain, among other things, why X activated that part of the brain. Hence, there are lots of interesting brain questions, but brain answers don't really explain psychological phenomenon. Take the imprinted gosling. We are tempted to say that its following its mother is "instinctive", but really, if anything is an instinct, it is that the gosling 'a close proximity to the mother' reinforces the goslings behavior. How do we know? Well, you do some experiments. If you build a box where the gosling has to press (peck) a key to bring mom closer, then it does. In fact, you can even build a box where the gosling has to walk AWAY from the mother for the mother to come closer. The gosling learns to do so pretty quickly. We can see that the mother approaching reinforces the goslings behavior, and all we have done is provided a description of the above events. That's it. Done. Simple. Straightforward. Scientific. All that said, the answer to why X is a reinforcer, is best answered in one of two ways, by reference to an evolutionary past or a developmental past. Typically, the best answers are found in the past history of the organism. After pavlov has trained his dog to drool when it hears the bell, I can use the bell to reinforce the dog. The bell IS a reinforcer, because it increases the rate of behaviors which it follows. Why is the bell a reinforcer? Because it was paired with the food in the past of the animal. Again, that not only explains the origins of the behavioral phenomenon, but all concurrent neural phenomenon as well. As for the need of memory to make that work, that's just crazy talk. Descartes (and others before and since) told us that we need to take memories of the past and apply them to current stimulation to make sense of it. That is just plain wrong. What we need is a system modified over time. You complexity people should be all about this! No where in a neural network model, for example, is to be found a memory (a remembrance) of the past events which shaped the system. The system changes as a result of past events, and now it does something differently than it did before. The neuronal structure of the rat in the skinner box has been changed as a result of past events. At one point, it was a rat that did not discriminate with its lever pressing behavior whether a light was on or off, and now it is a rat that does discriminate with its lever pressing behavior whether a light is on or off. Surely you are not suggesting that the rat need remember the past history of reinforcement for that to be true?!? Eric P.S. Relative to Roger's story about the Farmer... yes, we often self-stimulate (cough, cough) - our behaviors sometimes chain, with the end of one behavior being a part of the causal chain leading to the next behavior. As such, the chain of "thoughts" "in the farmer's head" need not be treated as any different than the chain of "actions" "of the mechanics body" as they change a tire. On Mon, May 3, 2010 01:27 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Looks like a hit a sore point.
Eric, I don't think you addressed my question. I have no problem with your defining "reinforcer" any way you like. What I am asking is what are the mechanisms that reinforcers exploit. Forget about memory. Let's assume you have two entities, e.g., a computer and a pigeon. My guess is that no matter how many times you reinforce a particular computer behavior, that behavior won't increase in frequency. Yet if you do the same thing for a pigeon, the frequency will increase. So here we have some good empirical evidence that there is some difference between a computer and a pigeon. The obvious question is what is it about these two entities that lead to these different results? The answer that reinforcers work on one but not on the other is not good enough. Having posed this question, I can imagine you saying that in the experiment you haven't reinforced the computer because if you had the behavior frequency would have increased -- by the definition of reinforcer. I guess that's fair, but it leads to the question of what makes a reinforcer effective? Presumably there are no computer reinforcers, but there are pigeon reinforcers. Why is that? What is about pigeons -- but not about computers -- that makes it possible to craft pigeon reinforcers but not computer reinforcers? Furthermore, since not everything I do to a pigeon works as a reinforcer, why do some actions serve as reinforcers where others fail. Also, why do some (probably most) pigeon reinforcers fail to work as reinforcers for earthworms and vice versa? Again, the circular answer that something is a reinforcer for some entity type if it works as a reinforcer for that entity type is not acceptable. As you can see, there is a whole raft of basic empirical questions that the definition of reinforcer brings up. It seems to me that any good scientist would want to find answers to them. These seem to me to be fundamental questions. What answers have behaviorists come up in the century or so that it's been around? -- Russ On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |