Re: Finding useful functions- part 1

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/07/04 

Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:55:33 +0000

In article <_2rjd.9029$5K2.7166@attbi_s03>, patty
<pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 13:04:25 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
>> <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>Stargazer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stargazer wrote:
>>>>>[...]>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The control of reinforcement schedules in an experimental setting
>>>>>>(no matter if with fishes or mermaids) will inform you about how
>>>>>>the animal reacts to artificially controlled reinforcement
>>>>>>schedules. That's part of what I call "artificial environments". It
>>>>>>will not inform you much about how the animal acts in natural
>>>>>>environments, where contingencies are completely different.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not clear what you mean by contingencies, not why you think that
>>>>>natural ones would have different effects than artifcial ones. The
>>>>>reinforcemnt schedule? The reinforcers? The animal's responses to the
>>>>>reinforcers? The discriminators? Etc?
>>>>>
>>>>>Just what do you think you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is an unwarranted assumption to suppose that studying particular
>>>>schedules of reinforcement will generalize to natural settings,
>>>>where these schedules will never happen sequentially (besides
>>>>being intermixed with different sets of stimuli).
>>>
>>>Yoy're mistaken if you think that behaviorists can't/won't devise
>>>schedules that don't resemble natural ones. You're further mistaken
>>>if you believe that "intermixing" of stimuli doesn't happen in the
>>>experimental setting. In fact, one of the problems of any
>>>experimental analysis of behaviour is teasing out which stimuli
>>>actually produce the observed effect(s( on the animal's behaviour.
>>>It's essentiallu impossible to reduce the number of stimuli to one.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Additionally,
>>>>what behaviorists study is not an animal's response to specific
>>>>stimuli, but the responses to what the animal _understands_
>>>>of those stimuli. This may lead to false conclusions, because the
>>>>experimenter observes ("perceives") the stimuli in a different
>>>>way than the animal being tested.
>>>
>>>See note above. And just how do you know what an animal "understands"????
>>>
>>>
>>>>If that is not enough, there's
>>>>the effect of neural plasticity. Schedules of reinforcement,
>>>>operant reinforcement, generalization and discrimination studies,
>>>>etc., all affect the organism's ability to respond to what the
>>>>experimenter set up. The organism becomes more "apt" to produce
>>>>particular behaviors that are a function of what the experimenter
>>>>contrived. This leads not to an understanding of the true behavior
>>>>of an animal, but to how behaviors of these animals change in
>>>>face of a predefined (and artificial) schedule, and not their
>>>>real capacity to handle stimuli from an unpredictable and hectic
>>>>natural environment.
>>>
>>>The notion that "predefined" schedules of reinforcement differ in any
>>>essential way from natural ones is simopky wrong. As a matter of
>>>fact, it was EAB's attempts to refine understanding of how
>>>reinforcement worked that led to the insight that random schedules
>>>are the most powerful in shpaing behaviour. Random schedules are
>>>pretty well what happens in nature. So ---
>>>
>>>I'm beginning to understand why DL gets annoyed with comments of the
>>>type you've written. They sound reasonable to anyone who has a
>>>limited/simplistic concept of EAB. Hell, I used to think this way,
>>>until I read some actual EAB.
>> Well, David has done nothing to explain what EAB is or does apart
>> from tract citations and a series of claims. He hardly has any right
>> to complain about anyones lack of understanding.
>> Regards - Lester
>
>Come'on Lester ... go look it up ... is't not that hard to find. It's
>David's more radical attitudes and presumptions that go beyond
>Skinner's EAB that should be justified.
>
>Newsgroup trimmed.
>
>patty

This should remind everyone of Wolf's farmer/zoo story.

On finding (and neglecting) useful functions:

<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031110/text
/31110w24.htm#31110w24.html_sbhd7>
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040303/text
/40303w03.htm#40303w03_sbhd0>
<http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Sm-97apr.pdf>
<http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Workj97.pdf>
<http://www.kent.ac.uk/kcjc/PDFfiles/George%20Mair%20paper.pdf>
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Cropwood.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/CatA1990.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Regimes.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm

Just how much "justification" are *you* going to ignore?

You have no idea how to use the term intensional by the way, so it's no
wonder you don't understand what intensional opacity covers - and guess
what, just like Zick, you won't be told either! You don't understand.
But maybe that just makes you idiotic. It's clear to me why you and Zick
don't understand, it's down to you not doing any work to find out!
heaven forbid if Modlin ever manages to realise his fantasies as you
amply illustrate the problems I've been drawing attention to. 

-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... >>reference are not confreres of mine and probably not of yours. ... >>are there in the history of EAB which do not involve animal training? ... Thank you for evading a simple, straightforward question, David. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... >>David's more radical attitudes and presumptions that go beyond ... >>Skinner's EAB that should be justified. ... >This should remind everyone of Wolf's farmer/zoo story. ... It's clear to me why you and Zick ...
    (sci.cognitive)