Re: death of the mind.

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:44:35 GMT

Alex Green wrote:
> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<L3tYc.112623$TI1.103642@attbi_s52>...
>
>>Alex Green wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<500Yc.26145$_H5.1005269@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>"In short the behavorists tried to explain learning without referring
>>>to mental processes"
>>>http://www.uib.no/People/sinia/CSCL/web_struktur-832.htm
>>>
>>
>>A better summary article delineating the various factions and evolution
>>of behaviorism is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism>.
>>
>>
>>>Behaviourism, in collecting data about the entire output of a set of
>>>actions, is attempting to recreate the internal state that gave rise
>>>to these actions (strangely without the admission that this is what it
>>>is doing).
>>>
>>
>>But there are no "internal states" in a behaviorist data. You are
>>inventing for them variables which they explicitly claim are irrelevant
>>to their control and prediction of behavior.
>
>
> The claim that the input and output data sets can be used to predict
> behaviour is not absurd. The output set contains both the simple
> action of the animal AND the consequence of this action. When a paw
> moves to kill a mouse all that exists in the signal that is the moving
> paw is a direction, a momentum etc. The killing of the mouse is
> present as an intention in the cat. When the behaviourist sees the paw
> strike the mouse he is able to gain an insight into the cat's
> intention even though the signal that is the moving paw does not
> reveal this. So the behaviourist is able to form a crude model of the
> inner state of the cat by observing the effects of its actions (its
> overall behaviour).
>

Behaviorists do not observe the effects of the action of a animal. That
is what a naturalist might do. A behaviorist will attemt to set
(control) the effects (consequences) of the animal's behavior. That is
the stratagy of their science. I realize that you are claiming that
they are calculating these internal states, even though they claim not
to. But you have not made your case at all.

> The idealistic behaviourist who denies internal states in the cat
> fails to realise that he is observing the cat's intention in the form
> of the added data provided by the presence of the dying mouse.
>

I have a feeling that a behaviorist would find that sentence idiotic.

>
>>>When a cat strikes a mouse it transmits data about its internal state
>>>through the movement of the paw. A moving paw in itself could mean
>>>anything but the fact that the paw hit the mouse shows that the cat
>>>had an intention. The behaviourist that records 'paw hit mouse and
>>>killed it' is peering into the cat's intention, the behaviourist that
>>>simply records 'paw moved' is being true to idealistic behaviourism
>>>because the death of the mouse was just an accident if cats do not
>>>have mental states.
>>>
>>
>>A cat will paw just as ferociously at a bouncing ball. Did she have the
>>intention to kill the ball?
>
>
> She has the intention of moving the ball, not killing it. Cats have
> complex internal states and the behaviourist can log these by
> observing behaviours.
>
>
>>A cat will paw at a lever and then go get
>>her reward in a dish across the room. Did she have the intention to
>>kill the lever? How do you scientifically distinguish your attributions
>>of states (that interpretative process going on *in your head*), from
>>the alleged intentional states *in the cat* ?
>>
>
>
> The internal states are complex. That is what varied behaviour is
> demonstrating. Suppose the ball, lever and mouse are positioned so
> that the paw movements are the same in all three. The data provided by
> the cat is the paw movement. It is the same in all three cases. The
> behaviour however is varied because it involves 3 different activities
> with three different rewards for the cat. If the paw does not encode
> the entire behaviour then where was it encoded? Clearly it was encoded
> in the cat. The cat modelled the world around it and chose particular
> directions in which to strike with the paw for particular effects.
>

I think a cat's reaching behavior is a bad example. A cat will reach
its paw at anything that moves, at least initially. Beyond that i
expect that it's behavior can be pretty much predicted and controlled by
setting the consequences of its actions. No internal states are
necessary for this and a behaviorist will not use them in his
predictions. IOW science cannot prove these alleged intentions in lower
animals.

Another perspective on this is that what you call a "intention" a
behaviorist will call a "pattern of behavior". Actually they would
probably use different words, but to me it sounds like they say that the
pattern of behavior preceding an alleged intentional action *is* what
you call "the intention".

Now, that being said, i happen to believe that *humans* can put
themselves in intentional states. I have done it in the following post:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5flwc.43855%24pt3.9918%40attbi_s03>

So now you have a measure of control and prediction over my behavior.
Call me an idiot, and you may prevent me from responding to your post.
I am still in that intentional state. You can observe most of my public
behavior prior to that post over at google. That behavior can be
distinguished from my promise to myself that i will not respond to such
an insult. That i could have written that post and had no intention of
following it proves that we can distinguish these as separate processes.

> The behaviourist can describe the three different scenarios and in
> doing so is giving us three different internal models for feline
> behaviour. The only problem is that 'idealistic' behaviourists do not
> realise that this is what they are doing. (But are there really any
> 'idealistic' behaviourists?).
>

Nope.

patty

Relevant Pages

  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... paw is a direction, a momentum etc. ... present as an intention in the cat. ... The idealistic behaviourist who denies internal states in the cat ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... of behaviorism is. ... > through the movement of the paw. ... > had an intention. ... A cat will paw just as ferociously at a bouncing ball. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... As the behaviourist will tell you, the cat moves ... >> paw into space with no intention. ... to operate an internal control system. ... > its environment constitute a system. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: QI off to the Big Quilt Frame (Ode to Soccerball)
    ... Such a loud sound from such a tiny body! ... She was a Human's Cat, not part of a feline community. ... slept under the covers with us, ... covers, or inside, she just HAD to have a paw touching your skin ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.quilting)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... > the action on the environment. ... What about the effect of the cat's action on cat? ... > the paw because the SAME MOVEMENT occurs in all 3 cases. ... internal state to you, and call that "your intention"; ...
    (sci.cognitive)