Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 09/10/04
- Next message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- In reply to: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:03:44 GMT
Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
> AC: David and I talked briefly about this example, but he didn't deal
>
>>with this
>>specific challenge, so here it is:
>>
>>You have Oedipus, who is unknowingly in love with his mother.
>>Assuming that we all agree that this is undesirable, and that part of
>>"controlling behaviour" is to change such situations, how does the EAB
>>stance suggest approaching this issue?
>>
>>Note that the folk psychological or even Dennett's intentional stance
>>would basically insist that you simply tell him that she is his
>>mother, and his rational capacities will take over. What is the EAB
>>response?
>>
>>GS: You have been told repeatedly about behavioristic notions like
>>rule-governed behavior. You have been told how we learn to manipulate
>>some of the variables of which our own behavior is a function. You
>>have been told how we have acquired extensive verbal repertoires and
>>how we have repertoires that can be described as "speaker" as well as
>>"listener." You have been told how we come to observe, and otherwise
>>act upon, the world and to "divide it into parts." You have been told
>>how we come to observe, and otherwise act upon, our own behavior,
>>including elements of it that can be observed only by the behaving
>>individual, and you have been told how the verbal community produces
>>such "knowing." Behavior involving such processes is behavior that is
>>frequently described as "rational," deliberative," etc.
>>
>>Why would the fact that one may alter Oedipus' behavior by speaking to
>>him threaten behaviorism in any why?
>
>
> JV: This would suggest that EAB is not only a philosophy but much more
> than that: a science that can predict behavior. Is there any
> comprehensive list of such predictable behaviors available?
>
> GS: Yes, see the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
> (1958-present) and numerous books and articles published in other
> journals.
>
> But let's pit your predictive abilities against mine. Below is a list
> of conditions and I would ask for your prediction – no fair looking it
> up in JEAB.
>
> 1.) Pigeons are food deprived to 85% of their free-feeding weight and
> key-pecking is maintained under a fixed-interval (FI) 3 min schedule
> of grain presentation. [A fixed-interval schedule is one in which the
> reinforcer is delivered upon the occurrence of the first response
> after a particular time period has elapsed.]. Access to grain is
> always 3.0 s. The session ends after 15 grain presentations or after
> one hour. A range of doses of cocaine are administered before some
> experimental sessions. Describe the non-drug performance of the
> pigeons in terms of rates and temporal patterns of response as well as
> the effects of a range of cocaine doses on these aspects of behavior.
> 2.) Describe the same for behavior maintained under a
> progressive-ratio (PR) schedule of grain presentation in which the
> ratios increase exponentially [A PR schedule is one in which
> reinforcement depends only on the emission of responses, and the
> number of responses increases systematically, usually after each
> reinforcer]. In addition, describe what one would expect in terms of
> the breaking point [breaking point refers to the last ratio completed]
> dose-effect function.
> 3.) Pigeons are exposed to the following procedure, briefly, but
> sufficiently, described.
> Initial links: Left and right keys illuminated white
>
> B1: Peck left -> blackout for t s-> left and right illuminated green
> and red respectively
> Terminal links:
> Peck left -> small reinforcer delivered immediately
> Peck right -> large reinforcer delivered after N s delay
>
> B2: Peck right-> blackout for t s -> right key is illuminated
> Terminal links:
> Peck left -> nothing
> Peck right -> large reinforcer delivered after N s
>
> Describe preference in the initial and terminal links as a function of
> t and N
>
> 4.) Two keys are illuminated. Pecking left delivers reinforcement on a
> variable-interval (VI) N s schedule [a VI schedule is one in which a
> reinforcer is contingent on the first peck after a specified time
> period which changes from reinforcer to reinforcer]. Pecking right
> delivers reinforcement on a VI X s schedule. Describe how keypecks are
> distributed on the two keys (the ratios of left/right keypecks) as a
> function of N and X. How reliable is this? If it is somewhat
> inaccurate, in which direction is it usually wrong?
> 5.) Responding is maintained on a VI N s schedule of reinforcement,
> but each keypeck subtracts t s off of the currently scheduled
> interval. Describe rates of responding as a function of N and t.
> 6.) What if keypecks add time to the currently scheduled interval in
> #5.
>
> I'll quit here. After all, I can only think of a few thousand more
> examples.
Years ago i worked in an office building where hoards of pigeons
congregated on the window ledge. They were quite noisy. On a nice day
we couldn't even open the window. How could we have gotten these
obnoxious buggers to congregate elsewhere?
<http://www.bradley.edu/exhibit95/pigeons.jpeg>
patty
- Next message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- In reply to: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Next in thread: Allan C Cybulskie: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
