Great. I agree completely!
-- Russ On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Russ, > > See my answer to Glen. And the cop out that ends it. > > I think that Eric and i have both been clear at least on this point. How > pain "is implemented" (do I dare?) is an interesting question, and an > excellent scientific question, but it is not the psychological question, > unless one happens to be a physiological psychologist or a > neuro-psychologist. I can ask and answer lots of interesting questions > about my word processor's behavior without knowing jack squat about how word > processing is implemented on my computer. I fact, I can use the same word > processor on two different computers and see very little evidence that the > are implemented differently. This does not mean that I deny the importance > of the programmers who implement word processing on computers or the > scientists who would reverse engineer the programs to find out how they are > implemented. > > I hope I don't get murdered for the metaphor. > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 5/4/2010 10:57:16 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Behaviorism > > Hi Nick, I was wondering how long you could resist getting drawn into this. > > History is fine. I have no problem talking about historical sequences and > how they hang together. > > What I don't know is whether Eric/you/behaviorists in general are > interested in the answer to the question of what makes a reinforcer work.I > tried to get Eric's answer to that, but I didn't. > > Is his/(your/behaviorists answer that he/you/they are interested in how > reinforcers work, but that's not what they are studying? That they believe > that there is a reasonable scientific answer to that question, but that > someone else is pursuing it? If so, I find that a reasonable answer -- > although I'd like to know who he/you/they think are doing that work and how > he/you/they think that work is coming. How would you/he/they describe the > results so far? What do we know about how reinforcers work and what are the > questions now being asked about that? Even if you don't work in the field as > someone as concerned about reinforcers as he/you/they, he/you/they must at > least know the state of our current knowledge of the field. > > Or is his/your/behaviorists' answer that how reinforcers work is not a > valid question because attempting to describe what goes on inside the entity > being reinforced is meaningless? > > In all this, I'm happy to use as a model the example of a computer. We > understand how computer "reinforcers" (i.e., programs) work because we > understand how computers work. Do you/he/they expect that we will (hopefully > soon) have a similarly concrete answer to how biological reinforcers work? > > > -- Russ > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Russ, >> >> I don't think either Eric and I suppose that internal events are not part >> of a full explanation of behavior; we are just asserting that it is not >> the only part. History of the behavior is another. A psychologist's job >> is to relate behavior to its history. The people whose job it is to relate >> it those history-behavior relations to internal events live "down the >> hall". >> >> What drives Eric and me nuts is when people start talking AS if they are >> talking about internal events when in fact they are just redescribing >> relations between the history of behavior and patterns of that behavior. >> EG, the vernacular, "I felt it in my gut" or the highly sophisticated, "The >> child was unhappy because of its 'internal working model' of its mother." >> I just went to a conference here in Santa Fe in which people banged on >> relentlessly that conscience was IN the brain. Such talk is a redirection, >> from something that we know a lot about (people's conscientious behavior) >> and something we know almost nothing about (the manner in which that >> behavior is mediated in the nervous system ... the neural correlates of that >> behavior). And even if we know exactly which part of the brain lights up >> when Jones feels guilty, we will still have the problem of the history by >> which Jones comes to feel guilty about THAT. Discovering the histories that >> lead people to feel that way and characterizing the higher order behavior >> patterns that constitute "feeling guilty" is what the psychology of guilt is >> all about, INAO. >> >> Nick >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([email protected]) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >> *To: *ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 5/4/2010 6:05:59 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Behaviorism >> >> Eric, you said, "Would you really tell me that I cannot talk >> intelligently about the ability of the stomach wall to resist acid without >> knowledge of the atomic structures underlying acid-resistance?" Yes, I would >> say that you probably can't talk intelligently about the ability of the >> stomach wall to resist acid without knowledge of the atomic structures >> underlying acid-resistance. How else are you claiming to talk intelligently >> about it? >> >> If your point is that the digestive biologist doesn't care why the stomach >> wall resists acid because all she cares about is what goes on inside the >> stomach. And if you are also saying that she assumes that other people can >> explain how the stomach wall keeps all that stuff contained without damage >> to itself. Then that's fine. It's like me saying that I don't know the >> details of computer engineering. All I care about is that the computer >> interprets instructions in a certain way. >> >> But I and the digestive biologist both acknowledge that there is an >> explanation of the issues we are ignorant of and that other people know what >> those explanations are. That seems to be different from the behaviorist who >> says that it is pointless to ask for an explanation because it doesn't make >> sense to ask the questions I'm asking. >> >> >> -- Russ >> >> >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:51 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Russ sayeth: "They [behaviorists] seem unwilling to ask how the entity >>> being reinforced works so that they can explain how the reinforcer works. >>> That just seems like bad science." >>> >>> Uhm.... weird assertion. Lets say that I am a digestive biologist, and >>> you ask me to explain the atomic structure underlying differences between >>> stomach and intestinal walls. Am I not justified in telling you that you >>> have asked a great question that is simply not in my area of expertise. Am I >>> not justified in telling you that there are people who specialize in >>> answering such questions, that they are molecular biologists, and that they >>> work down the hall? Would you really tell me that I cannot talk >>> intelligently about the ability of the stomach wall to resist acid without >>> knowledge of the atomic structures underlying acid-resistance? Would you >>> really tell me that digestive biology seems like bad science? >>> >>> I doubt you would tell me any of those things. >>> >>> Why should psychology be different? There are perfectly good people who >>> study the relevant animal innards. They are physiologists and >>> neuro-biologists. They have offices down the hall. Their work is fascinating >>> and I like to hear their talks. There are some people who work >>> cross-disciplines. Some of them do cool work, others do crap work, and still >>> others do cool work that they explain in crap ways. What more do you want me >>> to say? >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> Also, I told you that we know a lot about what makes something a >>> reinforcer. Let us pick an arbitrary set of neutral stimuli, say a card with >>> vertical lines. I can make a rat such that the vertical lines reinforce the >>> rat's behavior. THE THINGS I DO TO THE RAT explain why the vertical lines >>> act as a reinforcer. When you ask "why" the vertical lines reinforce the >>> rat, I will answer by telling you about how I put the rat through >>> such-and-such procedure.* Thus I WILL have explained why vertical lines >>> reinforce this rat. >>> >>> Again, this explains not only the origins of the behavioral phenomenon, >>> but also the origins of the concurrent neural phenomenon that are a >>> component part of the process in question. >>> >>> If you asked why the volcano in iceland blew its top, and I told you that >>> it blew because the rocks at the top of the mountain flew into the air, you >>> would stare at me like I was an idiot. Why? Because you asked me to explain >>> something that happened, and I answered by merely describing back a part of >>> the thing to be explained. Similarly, all neuronal happenings are part of >>> "the thing to be explained" when you are explaining reinforcement. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> *Most likely my story will involve repeatedly pairing the vertical lines >>> with food, but there are other options available. Heck, I can make a rat >>> that does not find food reinforcing. I can even make a rat that is born not >>> finding food reinforcing. Alas, those rats won't live very long. >>> >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
