Re: death of the mind.

From: Sergio Navega (snavega_at_intelliwise.com)
Date: 08/29/04

  • Next message: Traveler: "Re: death of the mind." 
    Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:01:04 -0300

    "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
    news:4130ba91$1_3@news.athenanews.com...
    > SN: 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.
    > >
    > > GS: You don't know anything about the basic facts of the science, so you
    > do
    > > not know how behaviorists use it to explain complex human behavior.
    > > Generalization is part of stimulus control. What variables affect
    > > generalization Sergio? You are ignorant, and you are arrogant.
    >
    > SN: And so once more one avoids dealing with the main issue: how are
    > we able to acquire the invariant features of kitchens, houses, cities,
    > libraries, language, reasoning heuristics, and a host of other
    > phenomena?
    >
    > GS: First be clear on the OBSERVATIONS you would like explained in terms
    of
    > basic behavioral processes.

    When I say "invariant features of kitchens" I am certainly not talking
    about direct observations. But I'm talking about an understandable
    abstraction.

    > SN: How can the explanation of such things be correlated
    > with neurobiology?
    >
    > GS: By hard work, and by not looking for metaphors (i.e., things that
    can't
    > be found because they don't exist).

    Without metaphors and abstract models one can hardly enter into
    such complex domains as the understanding of brains. Hard core
    neuroscientists talk about memory, retinotopic maps, activations
    of populations of neurons, etc. These may be metaphors, but I doubt
    one would make any progress without using them.

    >
    > SN: How can these explanations be coherent with
    > evolutionary biology,[]
    >
    > GS: How can they not be (except that "coherent with" is not really proper
    > usage)? The basic mechanisms of learning result in the modification of
    > behavior during an organism's ontogeny, but the processes themselves exist
    > because of natural selection.

    These explanations must be *compatible* with evolutionary biology.
    Memory, for instance, is a concept that fits well with evolutionary
    biology.

    >
    > SN: []computer science,
    >
    > GS: Why should behavioral phenomena "fit in" with computer science. You
    can
    > use computers to test mathematical hypotheses about behavior, I suppose,
    but
    > computers aren't animals and probably aren't like them in very many ways.

    You are confusing computers (the machines we have in front of us) with
    *computation*, which is the main theme of what one studies in computer
    science. Have you heard of Computational Neuroscience? They talk about
    memory, representation, maps, information.

    >
    > SN: []linguistics,
    >
    > GS: Some of what linguists point to are facts about languages. The level
    of
    > explanation for some of that is cultural - not strictly behavioral in the
    > sense I mean it. As to psycholinguistics, behaviorism demolishes it by
    > showing that the phenomena are functions of reinforcement contingencies.

    Linguistics have important links with evolutionary biology. Linguistics
    have also important links with computer science. Cognitive science is
    able to contribute with all these disciplines, which increases our overall
    understanding of all these phenomena.

    >
    > SN: mathematics,
    >
    > GS: By pointing to the behavior of mathematicians.

    And by disregarding all that can be learned with topics such as
    information theory, computational learning theory, statistics,
    probability, etc. Have you heard of Bayesian modeling? Cognitive
    science have important links with all such topics. Behaviorism?

    Sergio Navega.

  • Next message: Traveler: "Re: death of the mind."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: death of the mind.
      ... >> vision of science is the sterile state of their explanatory theories. ... engages in the behavior said to "show memory." ... > computers aren't animals and probably aren't like them in very many ways. ... And I've published inferential statistics when forced to - which was most of ...
      (sci.cognitive)
    • Re: Texas: Creationists appointed to review curriculum
      ... Mechanical does not equal science. ... computers without any need for the knowledge provided by science? ... Computers are math and electronics. ... Babbage's Difference Engine 2. ...
      (talk.origins)
    • Re: Physicists dont deliver
      ... scientists the means of constructing the technology that makes you ... I was thinking more in terms of CDs, computers, modern cars, electronics, ... Do you need your subscription to Popular Science renewed? ... dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Danger: Derrida at work
      ... > So don't blame on science what sexism all the rest of society is ... including the defaitism girls apply to themselves. ... There is another thing that computers do. ... those predictions to be tested against experimental results. ...
      (comp.programming)
    • Re: Texas: Creationists appointed to review curriculum
      ... Mechanical does not equal science. ... Germany's Konrad Zuse in his parents living room and today is ... computers without any need for the knowledge provided by science? ... How do you think that the materials from ...
      (talk.origins)
    • Quantcast