Using intensive reinforcement for developing intellectual abilities
ingenuous at mail.ru
Fri Jan 23 03:18:44 EST 2004
The whole "robo-rat" thing could have been done with a couple of small
tone gemerators mounted on a small collar around the rats neck.
I don't think, so. Possibly at first time the rat will pay attention
to the sounds, but then it will ignore them.
Again it only matter of experiments.
I don't see the "robo-rat" thing as relevant to training human
I wouldn't want to make an implantation even to an animal brain.
There is not a single thing new about the robo-rat stuff except the
small electronics. Otherwise, its 1950 technology, with basic
behavioral principles. It's hype.
Technology is technology. Principles are principles. The result is the
Well, to some extent, that contradicts what you seemed to say earlier.
How much to use pleasure and how much punishment - choice of those who
will make it. All three methods are possible and they can be changed
Once again, all of the scientific knowledge necessary for what you say
was known by 1956.
It was written even earlier: One step of real movement is more
important than dozen of programs.
You yourself gave an example how fruitless can be using the scientific
knowledge known by 1956. I mean the rat directed by sounds. (If it
will work, I will take the words back)
And, yes, many people have suggested exactly what you did (although
I'd like to know, excluding philosophical stuff.
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<89cfcd42e95529dbd203b37565fe1df8 at news.teranews.com>...
> Oleg: 1. Because all, who taste it, prefer brain stimulation to any
> conventional one.
> The experiment with the robo-rat would be impossible, if it were
> directed conventionally.
> GS: I'm not sure that the first is true. I don't see the "robo-rat" thing as
> relevant to training human children. There were certain logistical aspects
> of the robo-rat problem that made ESB attractive. Still, with the right
> training regimen one could reinforce long segments of behavior with
> conditioned reinforcers. The whole "robo-rat" thing could have been done
> with a couple of small tone gemerators mounted on a small collar around the
> rats neck. There is not a single thing new about the robo-rat stuff except
> the small electronics. Otherwise, its 1950 technology, with basic behavioral
> principles. It's hype.
> Oleg: 2. Certainly.
> GS: Well, to some extent, that contradicts what you seemed to say earlier.
> Oleg: 3 / 4 Do you want to say that there is not novelty in my idea?
> GS: Pretty much so. It is 1950s technology, and basic knowledge of the
> definition of reinforcement and punishment. And there's no need to use it -
> ESB, that is.
> Oleg: I.e. that it all can be founded in the works of behaviouralists. Must
> GS: Once again, all of the scientific knowledge necessary for what you say
> was known by 1956. And, yes, many people have suggested exactly what you did
> (although somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
> "Oleg" <ingenuous at mail.ru> wrote in message
More information about the Neur-sci