Re: death of the mind.

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 08/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:20:37 +0100

In article <413083db_1@news.athenanews.com>, Sergio Navega
<snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
>"Glen Foy" <spam33@butter.toast.net> escreveu na mensagem
>news:3d486df.0408280401.384dc7d2@posting.google.com...
>> Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:<OwPXc.34232$DG.1734629@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> > Sergio Navega wrote:
>> > [...]>
>> > > But if you *know* the house you're entering, this means you have
>> > > *expectancies* about what to find there.
>> >
>> > No you don't. You have an example of operant conditioning - rather
>> > complex, true, but still operant conditioning. That's what operant
>> > conditioning is - establishing "expectancies" as you so quaintly call
>> > them. I'd say that your past behaviour navigating the house more or less
>> > guarantees that you will do it again. Every time you navigate to the
>> > kitchen, that behaviour is reinforced. It maybe reinforced to the point
>> > where you can "do it in you sleep." And possibly will. Stranger things
>> > have happened.
>> >
>> > If "representations" were necessary to explain navigation behavior,
>> > you'd have to argue that a rat trained to turn right on a red light and
>> > left on a bell ring has a representation of the T-maze in its head. You
>> > would, too, come to think of it. Why?
>>
>> A model, it seems to me, is in part operant conditioning. We develop
>> expectancies (a good term) based on previous experience. And it is
>> true that this kind of simple-minded association of one thing with
>> another will take you a long way, possibly to the kitchen.
>
>The trouble with behaviorists is that they refuse to develop their
>theories past the operant conditioning level. We all know that we
>generalize things. We are able to acquire abstract representations
>of invariant features of kitchens, houses, cities, libraries, etc.
>Our behavior is influenced by these abstract representations, up
>to a point where no theory based solely on behavioristic constructs
>will satisfactorily explain. The price they pay for this radical
>vision of science is the sterile state of their explanatory theories.

The trouble with you is that you really are an ignorant, arrogant,
idiot!

You don't know what you're talking about. In my view, the fact that
you've been told this, and that it hasn't stopped you posting this
stream of nonsense must be taken as further testament to human
irrationality (already well documented here). You're a victim of naive
biases which are function of your limited experience in these areas.

The simple fact is that your ignorance is what *accounts* for your not
being aware of the fact that you're writing annoying fiction. That you
arrogantly don't listen is why I've said that you're an idiot. You don't
understand what you have been told, but that doesn't give you pause for
thought either!

Try to do some work on the assumption that you *don't* understand what
you're talking about, and try to do something about that. Take the fact
that an education in one areas does not adequately qualify one in others
- it just makes people over-confident!

Try a simple exercise in "objectivity". Begin with your first sentence
above. For heuristic purposes, assume the converse, and look for
evidence to support *that*. Here's a clue - "behavioural economics".

What if the appeal of your non-sterile "vision" turns out to be no more
than the ethereal appeal of creative writing? If so, what you're doing
could amount to little more than the reinforcement of a culture of
escapist science fiction, where "Cognitive Science" serves as its
collective, egregious institutionalisation.

The way to ascertain whether this assessment has merit would require you
to look to the empirical facts of the matter, not to the rhetoric. Some
of that has been provided here in the past, but you appear to ignore it.
You actually ignore the empirical evidence in favour of nefarious
rhetoric ("argument").

In brief, you're idiotically irrational, and sadly, an education is no
antidote. For many it just provides another vehicle/language for its
expression.
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Against Behaviorism
    ... do think the behaviorists are not doing real science? ... To me real science is making ... converge on some of the biological solutions for flight (such ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... The trouble with behaviorists is that they refuse to develop their ... >> A model, it seems to me, is in part operant conditioning. ... > theories past the operant conditioning level. ... >> You decide to go outside and crawl through the kitchen window. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >> A model, it seems to me, is in part operant conditioning. ... > theories past the operant conditioning level. ... We are able to acquire abstract representations ... The complete problem with behaviorists, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... >> forgotten that all behaviorists are indoctrinated into folk psychology ... But intensional opacity is a fact that is enforced by physical barriers. ... we know we are talking only of language here. ... It is so very hard for me to separate your science from your politics. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... >> forgotten that all behaviorists are indoctrinated into folk psychology ... But intensional opacity is a fact that is enforced by physical barriers. ... we know we are talking only of language here. ... It is so very hard for me to separate your science from your politics. ...
    (sci.physics)