death of the mind.
johnh at faraway.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Mon Jul 19 06:03:26 EST 2004
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6AuKc.70$Gf7.23587 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> John Hasenkam wrote:
> > "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:bPSJc.27499$TB3.1137662 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I am the most probably the least well-schooled person on this forum. I
> > school, hated university even more. That's brain damage for you. A touch
> > opposition defiant disorder perhaps. That may explain why I've always
> > enjoyed kicking against the pricks.
> > So whaddya reckon Wolf, do I have any chance of teaching myself enough
> > behaviorism to give myself a useful insight into the same?
> > Stay well,
> > John.
> Ah, well, John, schooling ain't the same as eddication.
education: latin root: leading into the light. No point providing light if
the scales haven't fallen from the eyes(stealing from St. Paul again).
I think we cannot penetrate brain function in relation to behavior unless we
first determine how the brain maintains stable output under such widely
varying conditions. Neat trick. Physiology will *never* be an adequate
explanation of behavior.
I came here to steal the insights of yourself, Glen, and David. I don't
expect to acquire any expertise in behaviorism but I know this coming
learning cycle will help me. As to this Glen character - a voice in the
wilderness, Zarathustra, rebel with a cause(wonderful Eysenck autobio)? I
suggest he is on a
mission from god, in the sense as in the movie, "The Blues Brothers". ie.
saving orphans from the pricks. Now whoever said RBists can't have a social
"'Skills of mind' and 'skills of eye, ear, and muscle' are fundamentally
Rosenbaum et al, 2001, Annual Review of Psychology, vol 52, 453-470.
"Motor development and cognitive development are fundamentally intertwined."
So what is this rubbish about some huge gap between simple and complex
> Read the classic texts by Skinner (he overstates his case, but he had
> issues with "soul" etc on account of his religious raising), and read a
> few articles describing actual research. If you want just an "informed
> opinion", that should be enough.
> Despite what Lester et al. say, behaviorism explains a lot; radical
> behaviorism is very careful to set limits on those explanations. Some
> people think these limits mean that RB denies the value of attempting to
> explanation outside those limits. I don't think so. It just claims that
> wt present we don't have the tools and methods to go beyond. Note that
> neurology and molecular biology appear to be going beyond those limts,
> but they don't. As Glen says "physiology mediates." That mediation is
> beginning to be analysed, but IMO that analysis is atill at the stage of
> gathering observations that may be useful. Where biology was in the
> 17-1800s, IOW. Dawrin's genius was to recognise a pattern or two and
> construct a theory - a theory that subseqeunet research has filled in
> but not refuted. We don't have such a theory of behaviour yet, but IMO
> the behaviorist stance (which says that the environment is an essential
> part of such a theory) will be a central feature.
> PS I'm a lousy typist., so I make typos, but I don'ty make errors., Hah!
More information about the Neur-sci