Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 12 05:33:25 EST 2004


Operants aren't "reflexes."

<Bouh> wrote in message news:7lpk70l965cjks52tt2uq4675bisl90535 at 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:27:55 +0100, David Longley
> <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <c0fj705aq3u4ga4ipvhqll4vb2prmimuc9 at 4ax.com>,
> >Bouh@?.?.invalid writes
> >>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:29:41 GMT, lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
> >>(Lester Zick) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:08:20 +1000, "Peter F."
> >>><effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>><Bouh> wrote in message
news:ndbg701bj7q26e4d4rel0j1o9456u8fn5d at 4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:14:07 +0100, David Longley
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>> But there is a little misunderstanding: I've never said that QM
played
> >>>>> a role in intelligence. It might or might not. I don't know. But I
> >>>>> don't rule out the possibility.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nor should you rule it out, IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyone contemplating carefully (and commenting reasonably) from a
broadly
> >>>>science aligned/informed position of overview, will have to conclude
that
> >>>>quantuum world (aspect of 'What Is going on') is fundamental to any
and
> >>>>every aspect of how we are.
> >>>
> >>>This is incorrect. We cannot exclude quantum effects as the mechanical
> >>>basis for sentience. But there is no justification for concluding that
> >>>such effects are definitely the mechanical basis for sentience without
> >>>comprehending the mechanics of sentience.
> >>
> >>In fact, DL says, in a way, that his experiments ( and day to day work
> >>) don't need a functional basis other than behaviour at the highest
> >>level ( human or animal behaviour ). I guess he gets enough
> >>"significant" results but the problem is that he's just studying
> >>behaviour, not intelligence. Most of the tasks we perform don't
> >>require real intelligence ( make coffee, drive a car, play tennis...
> >>). But even while performing these stupid tasks, the brain reacts with
> >>such a blazing speed that it wouldn't astonish me if QM plays a
> >>functional role. Now, of course, it has to be said that Peter is also
> >>right in the sense that since all matter and energy follows the rules
> >>of QM, everything scientifically known to man depends on it ( it was a
> >>message I tried to send to DL for some time, without being able to
> >>express it as clearly )
> >>
> >
> >You are referring (vaguely) to some classes of behaviour as
> >"intelligent" and others as not so, and probably because you don't have
> >a better grasp of behaviour and the contingencies which shape it. If you
> >worked on that, you might find yourself talking less the way that you do
> >above, to the extent that you might, ultimately be able to dispense with
> >such mentalistic terms.
>
> I'd rather put reflexes in the not-intelligent group of behaviours and
> the invention of the laser, which is based on an effect that had never
> been observed and which is a consequence of theories, in the
> intelligent group.
>
> >
> >You might find that engineering gets easier along the way.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>It does not matter if we cannot yet (_or_ never) experimentally
correlate
> >>>>anything that we might mean by consciousness (or 'mentally or
motorially
> >>>>manifest behaviour', for that matter) with observations of
'quantuum-weird
> >>>>world' made in the field of fundamental physical science.
> >>>>
> >>>>And one last thing:
> >>>>Human consciousness (however people like to think about it or explain
it)
> >>>>has nothing to do with the fact that plants and animals, and
geological and
> >>>>astrophysical events, got fossilized (in various ways) for us to find
that
> >>>>they did; _Only_ us finding out _that_ it all did does.
> >>>>
> >>>>%-]
> >>>>
> >>>>P
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regards - Lester
> >>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list