Or monkeys controlling mechanical arms through a brain-computer
connection.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:54 AM, [email protected] wrote:
My two cents. Whatever behaviour is, I'm sure that oak trees don't
do it.
So any definition which allows oak trees to behave will not do. The
same
goes for Canadian maple trees. Dogwood--maybe, because of their bark.
I have to say I find Dave Palmer's definition (from Paul Brandon's
post)
that a behaviour is anything sensitive to operant or classical
conditioning persuasive. This could even include EEG as a behaviour,
assuming it's been shown to be conditionable (which takes us back
to the
Neal Miller debacle, doesn't it?).
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected]
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of
psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
Paul Brandon
10 Crown Hill Lane
Mankato, MN 56001
[email protected]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
