| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » The Behaviorist Liturgy
Page 2 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| abwatson |
 Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<NVfc0QBW3V7$EwsO@longley.demon.co.uk>...
Quote: In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>, abwatson
albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
This newsgroup is about the philosophy or methodology of AI. Silly
people like Zero, Ozkural, Michaels etc just don't understand enough to
be able to see that what Glen, I and a few others have been trying to
get folk to see, is how the good research is actually done, and where
it's effective, why it's effective. It's effective because the approach
is fundamentally behaviourist - it's effective because it applies the
extensional stance.
It's effective because it applies the scientific method. It gives us
new understanding because of the new technologies invented over the
past 50 years, and applied every day in new experiments. New knowledge
bootstraps off older knowledge. You can call it what you like.
And those new technologies have come from application of the extensional
stance.
The scientific method is the extensional stance (at least as Quine
explicates "the scientific method").
Ha, ha, ha. Of course they do, David. And of course it is, David. The
SM has been here for 400 and more years, and we hardly need Skinner's
or Quine's new terminology to 'explicate' it. The buildings will all
fall down without Quine to hold them up. Ha, ha, ha.
Science is really just another word
Quote: for "knowing" and the extensional stance is something we have
collectively learned to do a refinement of our natural folk psychology.
For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk psychology when engaged
in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
Why do you waste you time? You're like a little person standing under
a stone lion on Trafalgar Square, raving at the world. Nothing better
to do with your life? Everyone has their teachers, and you'll never be
one, and you're not going to change that.
Quote: For some time now, efforts have been made to show how Radical (Skinner
etc) and Evidential (Quine etc) Behaviourism is pragmatically what
matters when we report effective scientific research. Many people ignore
the rest, or regard it as harmless speculation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Doktor DynaSoar |
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 27 Dec 2003 07:14:59 -0800, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) wrote:
} It is only appropriate that you are advertising yourself on
} alt.usenet.kooks
I'm not advertising myself there. I'm bringing you home. You belong.
If you hadn't provided ample evidence to that before, you most
certainly do now. Watch:
} After all, you and David Longley are two behaviorist crackpots who
} believe in absurd metaphysical assertions about the nature of mind.
It is a sign of an incredibly weak mind to assume that if someone
disagrees with you, they must be that thing which you're against. That
is invariably wrong, and makes for a perfect rampart for anyone with
sense to present you with, so that you may hoist your petard against
it.
If you can find someone to help you stay on track while you follow a
simple instruction, please do, and then go read what I wrote. I said
absolutely nothing regarding supporting behaviorism. What I said, in
summary, is that you're a common, garden variety loon, arguing a point
you've invented against a counterpoint of your own devising, based on
an obvious complete lack of knowledge in that area. The
"anti-behaviorism" garbage has been floating around the net for over
10 years, and it's always some ignorant amateurs who've picked up the
thread left by prior bozos, contributing nothing of substance.
Read that carefully: You've said nothing I haven't seen from equally
ignorant feebs for more than a decade.
Now, all of that may stand on its own. It really only emphasizes the
fact that you're arguing from formula rather than substance that you
continue to accuse me, as below, of being a behaviorist, when I've
made it abundantly clear to all but the most brain dead that I am a
professional neuroscientist. If you had the slightest inkling of what
that meant, you'd understand that it's about as antithetical as you
can get from being a behaviorist.
} You have not even understood that the intention
I know precisely what your intention was, and I know from whence it
comes. This is what I'm trying to explain to you.
} was to indicate how
} off-topic it may get when you write about people in the same
} self-righteous and counter-intellectual way which you have learnt from
From you, spankard. I copied your overblown self-absorbed rhetoric
quite well I thought.
Now, since I've proven that you're not arguing from any intellectual
platform whatsoever, but rather punching holes in the sky out of
frustration for not actually knowing enough to speak intelligently
about the subject, I leave it for you in your next paragraph to
reindite yourself and provide yet more evidence that I'm correct.
Rant on:
} a pseudo-scientist called B.F. Skinner and an armchair philosopher
} called Quine who was a master of verbal confusion. David Longley
} pursues the same route as yourself. His hypocritical deconstructionism
} and circular clownery is not unique to himself; it is a hallmark of
} behaviorist "movement", as if the dead and buried can be said to move.
} You can only declare your position as "unassailable" or
} "unfalsifiable" like David Longley, and then assault your critics
} because they are using the language of folk psychology, as if you have
} been able to eliminate abstract concepts from the discourse. You will
} then pretend that your philosophical position has a priviledged access
} to metaphysical truth while all of your claims have turned out to be
} mere assumptions. Every paper by Quine on human mind is a large
} circle. Every paper by Skinner concerning the ontology of animal and
} human psychology is a stack of empty sheets.
Very nice, thanks. How about an excuse for your behavior now?
} You also do not understand how specific anti-behaviorist critics have
} been on comp.ai.philosophy and sci.cognitive in response to the
} behaviorist infestation and widespread sabotage carried out by minions
} of Skinner and Quine.
Perfect. Those bad people made you have to do it.
} There is no need to re-iterate the valid scientific and philosophical
} objections to your obsolete doctrine. I believe even you are advanced
} enough to use search engines on the web.
Gee, you were so full of bluster, as well as yourself before. That was
rather ... weak. Run out of steam?
} Read what I wrote in my previous post well. There is a lesson or two
} there for simpletons such as yourself. And another point is that one
} can verbally assault someone without the idiotic sexual insults you
} are generating.
OH, NO! LOOK OUT!
} Perhaps you are mirroring the behavior of others in
} your environment, who knows?
Darn, you stepped right in it. That was very behaviorist of you. You
sure you don't want to come out of the behaviorist closet?
} For what it's worth, here is the post by Doktor DynaSoar that
} motivated my response:
}
} > There's many of these obviously self-instructed anti-behaviorists
} > pouting around and spewing nonsense. Apparently it's safer to knock
} > down imaginary straw men than it is to learn something. If there
} > weren't so many different ones, I'd say they're trolls. They never do
} > get specific about who these behaviorists really are, but when you
} > tell them they're boneheads, they accuse you of being a behaviorist.
} >
} > Drawing parallels between this behavior and any number of
} > fundamentalist something-or-others is left as an exercise for the
} > reader.
}
} You are likening anti-behaviorists to fundamentalists while
} philosophical behaviorism itself is one of the few amazing
} fundamentalist positions in philosophy of mind. How ironic. How sad.
Yet how true. It stems primarily from the fact that those who claim to
be anti-behaviorists are not truly anti-behaviorism, but rather are
anti-something-entirely-self-deluded.
} If you had any level of sophistication, you could talk about
} behaviorism as a matter of hypothesis ("what if..."), not as unfounded
} assertions ("it is true that ..."), and we could have had an actual
} philosophical exchange about the merits and defects of such an
} approach to philosophy of mind.
If you had any level of understanding regrading my sophistication, as
evidenced by publication in peer reviewed professional journals, you'd
understand just how goofy you look thrashing around making unsupported
and unsupportable accusations. That, however, is your modus operandi,
As for "philosophy of mind", I've had my fill. I was a charter
subscriber to the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and was appaled to
see that it consisted almost entirely of philosophy. It was worse than
useless, it was obsfucation which some otherwise rational
neuroscientists were wasting their time on, making lots of words and
saying nothing. Come volume 3, #2 of JCS, they had a "special issue"
on "zombies". Since no one associated with the journal could provide
me with a source of such beings, so that I might obtain some for
testing in my laboratory, I bade them farewell.
I measure real phenomena. I do not have time or inclination to engage
in such intellectual masturbation. You, on the other hand, seem to
have all the time in the world for it. Lack of anything substantive, I
must assume.
} As I said, I will not indulge myself with the ways of sub-human. You
} shall find comfort in your philosophy of nothingness for that is what
} your mind can afford.
Can't stop trying to pin the tail on the furniture, and try make
everyone else believe it's a donkey, can you? That's pitiful. You
deparately need some new matieral. Unfortunately, that would require
learning.
} This post is for others to see.
Darn tootin'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil W Rickert |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Horsman" <macrodm@telus.net> writes:
Quote: "Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:bsk7q0$5q5$2@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
[DEL]
For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk psychology when engaged
in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
"The pursuit of truth" better describes religion than science.
You lost me there....what's the difference?
Science is basically pragmatic -- looking for what works. Religion
purports to be seeking some imagined metaphysical truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Longley |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <3FED9523.6@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris <jalegris@xympatico.ca>
writes
Quote: David Longley wrote:
In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>,
abwatson <albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
This newsgroup is about the philosophy or methodology of AI. Silly
people like Zero, Ozkural, Michaels etc just don't understand enough to
be able to see that what Glen, I and a few others have been trying to
get folk to see, is how the good research is actually done, and where
it's effective, why it's effective. It's effective because the approach
is fundamentally behaviourist - it's effective because it applies the
extensional stance.
It's effective because it applies the scientific method. It gives us
new understanding because of the new technologies invented over the
past 50 years, and applied every day in new experiments. New knowledge
bootstraps off older knowledge. You can call it what you like.
And those new technologies have come from application of the
extensional stance.
The scientific method is the extensional stance (at least as Quine
explicates "the scientific method"). Science is really just another
word for "knowing" and the extensional stance is something we have
collectively learned to do a refinement of our natural folk
psychology. For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk psychology
when engaged in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
For some time now, efforts have been made to show how Radical
(Skinner etc) and Evidential (Quine etc) Behaviourism is
pragmatically what matters when we report effective scientific
research. Many people ignore the rest, or regard it as harmless
speculation.
This all makes sense, but what have you got against the concepts of
information processing and storage? They are hardly just "metaphors" -
metaphors for what? Modern science could not exist without them.
You can trust Glen on this. What he says he says well, and he says
representatively. I'm also a little surprised that you find "Verbal
Behavior" an easy read by the way - it rings warning bells. When one
starts psychology one tends to go for the "interesting ideas" - in time,
one comes to appreciate how hard it is to do the sort of research that
Skinner did, and how hard it is to write as clearly and directly as he
and Quine. All too many in this (and related) newsgroups are seduced by
what really amounts to good creative writing - or neat logical game
playing - if you look closely you'll see that's what many seem to be
attracted to - not clear empirical content. Sadly, many can't see this
as they never get to see the real scope of Skinner's work and its
applicability to all forms of behavioural engineering (which is
basically what comp.ai.philosophy is really addressing in my view). As
well as reading "Verbal Behavior" you really should make sure you have
read some of the work on contingencies of reinforcement - playing with
SNIFFY is something I'd recommend as well.
(This was a much longer post, but I thought better of it - hope this
suffices).
--
David Longley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Horsman |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:bsk7q0$5q5$2@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
Quote: David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
[DEL]
For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk psychology when engaged
in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
"The pursuit of truth" better describes religion than science.
You lost me there....what's the difference? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Horsman |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3feb8787.2647984@netnews.att.net...
Quote:
The Behaviorist Liturgy
It's always seemed curious that behaviorists refuse to discuss
[cut]
without reference to behavior in general.
Regards - Lester
Now look what you started Lester...again! I have revised my earlier opinion
and decided you may have once been bitten by a behaviorist.
Seriously though, perhaps you could help me out once again. I have
carefully read (most) of this thread in the hope of gaining insight.
However, I may have missed some of the finer points of the discussion. Now,
please correct me if I am wrong, but as nearly as I can tell the major
points made in the replies to your posting are:
1) nah nah nah-boo-boo
and
2) your mother wears army boots
Although it would detract from the directness and eloquence of your posting,
it might help generate more useful discussion if you included specific
examples supporting your assertions. Then again, it might not.
Regards,
Dave Horsman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Horsman |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rLw1D$AoKr7$EwoX@longley.demon.co.uk...
Quote: In article <3FED9523.6@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris <jalegris@xympatico.ca
writes
David Longley wrote:
In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>,
abwatson <albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
[cut]- playing with
SNIFFY is something I'd recommend as well.
(This was a much longer post, but I thought better of it - hope this
suffices).
--
David Longley
If you don't mind, what is SNIFFY?
Thanks,
David Horsman
BTW, you must have thicker skin than a rhino. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil W Rickert |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
Quote: In article <bsmqu0$djg$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes
Science is basically pragmatic -- looking for what works. Religion
purports to be seeking some imagined metaphysical truth.
And historically - pre 1951 - science was (by the logical positivists at
least) defined as "the pursuit of truth" (synthetic statements), and
And that has a lot to do with why logical positivism was so nonsensical.
Quote: philosophy the analysis of meaning. Hence Quine's summary book "Pursuit
of Truth" (1992).
It is based on the nonsense that is logical positivism.
Quote: This has nothing to do with seeking metaphysical truth.
Science constructs its own pragmatically based criteria for truth.
Logical positivism presumes that some sort of truth pre-exists
without such construction. You cannot make sense of that except on
the assumption that "truth" is used as a metaphysical notion (even if
positivists claimed to reject metaphysics). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Glen M. Sizemore |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<snip>
Dr. D. It really only emphasizes the fact that you're arguing from formula
rather than substance that you continue to accuse me, as below, of being a
behaviorist, when I've made it abundantly clear to all but the most brain
dead that I am a professional neuroscientist. If you had the slightest
inkling of what that meant, you'd understand that it's about as antithetical
as you can get from being a behaviorist.
<snip>
GS: Hi. Not that I disagree with much of what you wrote but, for the record,
what I view as behaviorism is not antithetical to neuroscience. Behaviorism
simply says that behavior can be understood as a subject matter in its own
right, and can be so considered without viewing it as a symptom of the
activities of the "mind" or brain. The position also typically holds that
the elucidation of behavioral processes at the behavioral level is essential
to the goal of eventually understanding the relation between behavior and
neurophysiology. Behavioral facts (especially uncovered by behavior
analysis, since they are known to be reliable and general and to have
relevance to the behavior of individuals) are "what is to be explained."
Respectfully,
Glen
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting@OMCL.mil> wrote in message |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Longley |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <6xAHb.78535$ss5.28320@clgrps13>, David Horsman
<macrodm@telus.net> writes
Quote:
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rLw1D$AoKr7$EwoX@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <3FED9523.6@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris <jalegris@xympatico.ca
writes
David Longley wrote:
In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>,
abwatson <albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
[cut]- playing with
SNIFFY is something I'd recommend as well.
(This was a much longer post, but I thought better of it - hope this
suffices).
--
David Longley
If you don't mind, what is SNIFFY?
http://
www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/special_features/ext/sniffy/index.htm
(split line to avoid word wrap)
It's a simulation and obviously has its limitations, but it's enough to
give those who have no hands on experience *some* idea of what
contingencies of reinforcement are, some idea of schedules, and what
shaping is.
I think too many academics spend too much time with words without much
idea of how their use has to be constrained by factual real world
relations. It is difficult (even for many psychology undergraduates) to
get adequate first hand experimental experience.
Quote:
Thanks,
David Horsman
BTW, you must have thicker skin than a rhino.
I guess so....
--
David Longley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Longley |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <16lsuv4ibf9ig5ss198766d32o9ugoqlho@4ax.com>, Doktor DynaSoar
<targeting@OMCL.mil> writes
Quote:
Now, all of that may stand on its own. It really only emphasizes the
fact that you're arguing from formula rather than substance that you
continue to accuse me, as below, of being a behaviorist, when I've
made it abundantly clear to all but the most brain dead that I am a
professional neuroscientist. If you had the slightest inkling of what
that meant, you'd understand that it's about as antithetical as you
can get from being a behaviorist.
Whilst I think you are right to pick Ozkural up on his irrational
rhetoric, I'm not sure why a professional neuroscientist would say that
their position is "as antithetical as you can get from being a
behaviorist". I trained in neuroscience, and worked with some of the
best in their field. I don't think any of them would subscribe to that
view.
The reason why I have been critical of Michaels, Ozkural, Zero and
others is that from my experience in neuroscience, behaviourism is
really, literally, quite fundamental. The mainstream journals are full
of it.
--
David Longley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eray Ozkural exa |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Doktor DynaSoar <targeting@OMCL.mil> wrote in message news:<16lsuv4ibf9ig5ss198766d32o9ugoqlho@4ax.com>...
Quote: On 27 Dec 2003 07:14:59 -0800, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) wrote:
} It is only appropriate that you are advertising yourself on
} alt.usenet.kooks
I'm not advertising myself there. I'm bringing you home. You belong.
If you hadn't provided ample evidence to that before, you most
certainly do now. Watch:
Let the readership decide who is an idiot:
1. A computer scientist who explores the philosophical problems
regarding the computational view of the mind.
2. A USENET crank with a silly handle as yourself who claims to be a
reputable scientist (I don't care what your field is) and at the same
time believes in an outdated philosophical theory which was ridiculed,
dismantled and eradicated several decades ago.
Quote: } After all, you and David Longley are two behaviorist crackpots who
} believe in absurd metaphysical assertions about the nature of mind.
It is a sign of an incredibly weak mind to assume that if someone
disagrees with you, they must be that thing which you're against. That
is invariably wrong, and makes for a perfect rampart for anyone with
sense to present you with, so that you may hoist your petard against
it.
The metaphysical assertions of the obsolete doctrine of behaviorism
are incredibly naive. As Neil says, it takes an advanced degree in
philosophy to come up with such stupid ideas.
On the other hand, verbal behavior can be used to distinguish fools
from those who are not and a native speaker of English as yourself
should be careful in the kind of excrete he emits to a global network.
Saying this is of course no commitment to behaviorism.
On comp.ai.philosophy the main subject is philosophy of mind and
theoretical discussions about a subject in computer science called
artificial intelligence. The criticism of behaviorism stems primarily
from the prevalence of militant behaviorist posts which corrupt the
course of discussion on comp.ai.philosophy. It should not come as a
surprise that the majority of these people are neither philosophers
nor computer scientists. They are behaviorial psychologists, etc.
As a matter of fact, in my own work on comp.ai.philosophy I try to
show both the positive and negative facets of behaviorism approach.
Discussions about philosophical behaviorism would be perfectly
legitimate if our behaviorists could conduct any amount of rational
discussion. As I said, their "verbal behavior" will degenerate into
stupid circular arguments and personal insults exactly in the same way
you did. This makes the matter strictly personal to me, and your
foolish remarks motivated me to clarify who is a fundamentalist and
who is not.
I see no harm in putting you in the same basket as David Longley who
is an "unassailable" crackpot as yourself. I will post additional
material about David Longley and the behaviorists to alt.usenet.kooks
for additional entertainment value. I would be delighted to show whom
the behaviorists are on comp.ai.philosophy and what they have done
with respect to their "verbal behavior".
If you wonder what my specific objections have been, search for them
using google. I cannot waste my mind with the rest of your post.
--
Eray Ozkural |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Legris |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 10:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Longley wrote:
Quote: In article <3FED9523.6@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris <jalegris@xympatico.ca
writes
David Longley wrote:
In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>,
abwatson <albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
This newsgroup is about the philosophy or methodology of AI. Silly
people like Zero, Ozkural, Michaels etc just don't understand
enough to
be able to see that what Glen, I and a few others have been trying to
get folk to see, is how the good research is actually done, and where
it's effective, why it's effective. It's effective because the
approach
is fundamentally behaviourist - it's effective because it applies the
extensional stance.
It's effective because it applies the scientific method. It gives us
new understanding because of the new technologies invented over the
past 50 years, and applied every day in new experiments. New knowledge
bootstraps off older knowledge. You can call it what you like.
And those new technologies have come from application of the
extensional stance.
The scientific method is the extensional stance (at least as Quine
explicates "the scientific method"). Science is really just another
word for "knowing" and the extensional stance is something we have
collectively learned to do a refinement of our natural folk
psychology. For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk
psychology when engaged in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
For some time now, efforts have been made to show how Radical
(Skinner etc) and Evidential (Quine etc) Behaviourism is
pragmatically what matters when we report effective scientific
research. Many people ignore the rest, or regard it as harmless
speculation.
This all makes sense, but what have you got against the concepts of
information processing and storage? They are hardly just "metaphors" -
metaphors for what? Modern science could not exist without them.
You can trust Glen on this. What he says he says well, and he says
representatively. I'm also a little surprised that you find "Verbal
Behavior" an easy read by the way - it rings warning bells. When one
starts psychology one tends to go for the "interesting ideas" - in time,
one comes to appreciate how hard it is to do the sort of research that
Skinner did, and how hard it is to write as clearly and directly as he
and Quine. All too many in this (and related) newsgroups are seduced by
what really amounts to good creative writing - or neat logical game
playing - if you look closely you'll see that's what many seem to be
attracted to - not clear empirical content. Sadly, many can't see this
as they never get to see the real scope of Skinner's work and its
applicability to all forms of behavioural engineering (which is
basically what comp.ai.philosophy is really addressing in my view). As
well as reading "Verbal Behavior" you really should make sure you have
read some of the work on contingencies of reinforcement - playing with
SNIFFY is something I'd recommend as well.
(This was a much longer post, but I thought better of it - hope this
suffices).
Sizemore's view of information processing, "It is irrelevant to call the
neurons 'information processors' because, at least as far as I can see,
anything may be called 'information processing'.", cannot be taken
seriously. It is obvious that many things in the brain are not
profitably seen as IP. And the things that do appear to be IP are not
all the same, they have particular characteristics.
Do you think IP concepts would apply to SNIFFY's behavior?
I didn't say that VB is an easy read, Sizemore did (this tactic gives
him a convenient position to ridicule, especially if others blindly
believe him). I said the book is not particularly difficult. Kant is
difficult.
--
Joe Legris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Longley |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <3FEEFBCC.7080002@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris
<jalegris@xympatico.ca> writes
Quote: David Longley wrote:
In article <3FED9523.6@xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris
jalegris@xympatico.ca> writes
David Longley wrote:
In article <1461e0ed.0312262050.37ba21de@posting.google.com>,
abwatson <albertbwatson@yahoo.com> writes
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bI9JTMDeGI7$EweF@longley.demon.co.uk>...
This newsgroup is about the philosophy or methodology of AI. Silly
people like Zero, Ozkural, Michaels etc just don't understand
enough to
be able to see that what Glen, I and a few others have been trying to
get folk to see, is how the good research is actually done, and where
it's effective, why it's effective. It's effective because the
approach
is fundamentally behaviourist - it's effective because it applies the
extensional stance.
It's effective because it applies the scientific method. It gives us
new understanding because of the new technologies invented over the
past 50 years, and applied every day in new experiments. New knowledge
bootstraps off older knowledge. You can call it what you like.
And those new technologies have come from application of the
extensional stance.
The scientific method is the extensional stance (at least as Quine
explicates "the scientific method"). Science is really just another
word for "knowing" and the extensional stance is something we have
collectively learned to do a refinement of our natural folk
psychology. For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk
psychology when engaged in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
For some time now, efforts have been made to show how Radical
(Skinner etc) and Evidential (Quine etc) Behaviourism is
pragmatically what matters when we report effective scientific
research. Many people ignore the rest, or regard it as harmless speculation.
This all makes sense, but what have you got against the concepts of
information processing and storage? They are hardly just "metaphors"
- metaphors for what? Modern science could not exist without them.
You can trust Glen on this. What he says he says well, and he says
representatively. I'm also a little surprised that you find "Verbal
Behavior" an easy read by the way - it rings warning bells. When one
starts psychology one tends to go for the "interesting ideas" - in
time, one comes to appreciate how hard it is to do the sort of
research that Skinner did, and how hard it is to write as clearly and
directly as he and Quine. All too many in this (and related)
newsgroups are seduced by what really amounts to good creative
writing - or neat logical game playing - if you look closely you'll
see that's what many seem to be attracted to - not clear empirical
content. Sadly, many can't see this as they never get to see the real
scope of Skinner's work and its applicability to all forms of
behavioural engineering (which is basically what comp.ai.philosophy
is really addressing in my view). As well as reading "Verbal
Behavior" you really should make sure you have read some of the work
on contingencies of reinforcement - playing with SNIFFY is something I'd recommend as well.
(This was a much longer post, but I thought better of it - hope this
suffices).
Sizemore's view of information processing, "It is irrelevant to call
the neurons 'information processors' because, at least as far as I can
see, anything may be called 'information processing'.", cannot be taken
seriously. It is obvious that many things in the brain are not
profitably seen as IP. And the things that do appear to be IP are not
all the same, they have particular characteristics.
Well, I think Glen's views on this *can* be taken seriously. Miller and
Frick tried applying Shannon's theory to operant conditioning work in
Miller's first work back in 1949. After that, attempts were made to
apply it to just about everything form neurones to reaction time. There
were attempts to apply it to most of the data summarised by the
Rescorla-Wagner model in one contribution to a series of volumes on
Behavior Analysis in the early 80s and it was really all of this that
allowed Chomsky to use Information Theory as a foil to introduce his
Recursive Function Theoretic analysis of languages back in the late 50s.
The facts are that Information Theory never really caught on in
psychology, and the reason why it didn't was because it was empirically
sterile. Most of what it led to as "Cognitive Psychology" has proven
sterile too - and those responsible for it have been pretty much as
critical as Glen and I have if you look into it. In time, those who have
been critical of what we have said will see this for themselves - the
papers are out there.
The point is that the brain may change as a function of experience but
what people like to call information or meanings are not in the head per
se. If one looks into the recent philosophy of all of this, one will
find that even the philosophers of mind are saying this. It may all
sound like Glen and I are fighting a rear-guard action, but in fact,
time will show that we are up there at the front. It's people like
Ozkural and Michaels, Zero etc who just don't know enough of what's been
done, what's been rejected and where we are now. That's because despite
their claims, they are not bona fide researchers - they're amateurs and
students.
Quote:
Do you think IP concepts would apply to SNIFFY's behavior?
You could look at it that way I guess - it's a program - but apart from
that, its a simulation.
Quote:
I didn't say that VB is an easy read, Sizemore did (this tactic gives
him a convenient position to ridicule, especially if others blindly
believe him). I said the book is not particularly difficult. Kant is
difficult.
OK - compared to Kant it may be an easier read - I'll grant you that.
I'm not sure Glen's purpose is to ridicule you. If you say something
silly he may well do so - would that be such a bad thing? In my
experience he tends to be fair.
--
David Longley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Longley |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <bsmqu0$djg$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
<rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes
Quote: "David Horsman" <macrodm@telus.net> writes:
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:bsk7q0$5q5$2@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
[DEL]
For that reason, we eschew our intensional folk psychology when engaged
in "the pursuit of truth" (science).
"The pursuit of truth" better describes religion than science.
You lost me there....what's the difference?
Science is basically pragmatic -- looking for what works. Religion
purports to be seeking some imagined metaphysical truth.
And historically - pre 1951 - science was (by the logical positivists at
least) defined as "the pursuit of truth" (synthetic statements), and
philosophy the analysis of meaning. Hence Quine's summary book "Pursuit
of Truth" (1992).
This has nothing to do with seeking metaphysical truth.
--
David Longley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:40 am
|
|