Using intensive reinforcement for developing intellectual abilities

Oleg ingenuous at mail.ru
Fri Jan 23 03:18:44 EST 2004


GS:
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.

Oleg:
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.

GS:
I don't see the "robo-rat" thing as relevant to training human
children

Oleg:
I wouldn't want to make an implantation even to an animal brain.

GS:
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:
Technology is technology. Principles are principles. The result is the
result.

GS:
Well, to some extent, that contradicts what you seemed to say earlier.

Oleg:
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
in time.

GS:
Once again, all of the scientific knowledge necessary for what you say
was known by 1956.

Oleg:
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)

GS:
And, yes, many people have suggested exactly what you did (although
somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

Oleg:
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
> be.
> 
> 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).
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Glen
> 
> "Oleg" <ingenuous at mail.ru> wrote in message



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list