[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?

Glen M. Sizemore via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com)
Fri Apr 13 15:36:48 EST 2007


"Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:fMNTh.6$uF1.0 from trndny04...
> Before I composed my post last 'night',
> I read part of the lengthy description of
> the History of "associative learning" in
> =Britannica=. [Be-cause I'd declared that
> I wouldn't do any off-NG-reading, I didn't
> reply, last 'night', using any of the inform-
> ation in that reading -- but I will 'now'.]
>
> I Respect =Pavlov= and the work he did.
>
> B. F. Skiner got so burned-out because
> he, Falsely, tried to cram everything in-
> to the dead-end of Behaviorism that,
> when he wrote =Walden II=, which I read
> as a sophomore undergraduate, he
> couldn't even write -- the book is, itself
> a "box" into which the reader can flat-
> out See that Skinner is trying to 'force'
> folks to enter. Good grief! Skinner had
> so much animosity toward Children
> that he even developed a 'box' that he
> 'advised' Parents to put their =Infants=,
> which is exactly-the-opposite of the
> Tender-Nurturance-no-matter-what
> in which Infants thrive-best [I won't get-
> into what I long-ago read of his Daught-
> er's Childhood at the hands of Behav-
> iorism.]

There is no reason to respond to your mania-driven nonsense further, but I 
will straighten you out one more time:



Deborah Buzan (nee Skinner) is a successful artist living in Great Britain. 
Julie Vargas (nee Skinner) is a psychologist in, I think, the Dept. of 
Education at U. of West Virginia. When the myth re-surfaced recently in a 
book that was described in a London paper, i.e., that her Dad "experimented 
on her" she went crazy later and killed herself in a bowling alley in 
Billings Montana, Debbie wrote to the editor saying that she can't prove she's 
not crazy, but that she was sure she wasn't dead, and that she'd never been 
to Montana. The box in question was supposed to function like a playpen, but 
it was temperature and humidity controlled. The inside was easily cleanable 
and it allowed the child to wear only a diaper. Skinner believed that the 
way parents had to dress their infants was aversive to them - they would 
either be a little too cold, or a little too hot all bundled up and, thus, 
they would spend time trying to escape the cold or heat - i.e, 
negatively-reinforced behavior.  It was always Skinner's goal to minimize 
the extent to which  aversive control was used to control human behavior. To 
him, aversive control was the ugliest thing in the world. He did one - count 
'em - one experiment on punishment. In his autobiography he declared 
something like "I'm sure I could have contributed to an understanding of 
punishment and avoidance but I simply do not like shocking rats." He was a 
gentle man of towering intellect. His daughters both loved him dearly and 
miss him. You can't, of course, be blamed for being another idiot that fell 
for an implausible urban myth, and you are granted further amnesty because 
of your all-too-obvious mental illness. And, BTW, nothing you can say will 
change the fact that animals are strongly controlled by stimuli that are 
correlated with short delays to reinforcement. There are hundreds of other 
behavioral effects that you cannot get right - not at least without finding 
the relevant literature, and this realization has made you angry. As well it 
should. Even some cognitive types might have gotten the problem I posed 
right because it is a classic "self-control" experiment. Anyway, the 
ignorant venom you spew above is much like the ignorant venom you spew 
below, so no point-by-point analysis is required. Indeed, no analysis is 
required at all.
>
> After my reading last night', I found it to
> be Genuinely-Hilarious that, I'd gotten
> it Correct [in this [post to which you've
> replied, the Correct 'answer' was given
> =twice=], but you just 'ignored' that, and
> that you, nevertheless, 'think' that the
> Behaviorist 'program' 'is', itself, anything
> other-than a "rut" in a worn-out-old LP
> record-album, in which Behaviorists
> 'celebrate' being 'stuck'.
>
> More below.
>
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:461f5fed$0$2735$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
> |
> | "Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message
> | news:T9uTh.14637$OU1.10430 from trndny04...
> | > "Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message
> | > news:zCGSh.6251$FC5.2247 from trndny06...
> | > | "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:4618d1a3$0$22574$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
> | > ||| [...]
> | > || [...]
> | > | [...]
> | >
> | > || Q1. Which keys does the animal peck?
> | > |
> | > | [Short Answer]
> | > |
> | > | 'assuming' that the pigeon is complete-
> | > | ly-naive, it will have no key-preference.
> | > |
> | > | As the pigeon interacts with the appar-
> | > | atus, the built-in contingencies will
> | > | automatically train the bird to con-
> | > | verge-upon preferring the left key -- 
> | > | contingency 1, above -- because:
> | > | [...]
> | >
> | > Dr. Sizemore wrote otherwise in his
> | > original posting of his 'test', but, as I
> | > worked, I 'lost-track' of the fact that
> | > he said that the "green" key can oc-
> | > cur on the right =or= the left in the
> | > '2nd' main contingency.
> | >
> | > So the pigeon will tend toward peck-
> | > ing 'the' "green" key, regardless of
> | > whether it's left or right.
> |
> | This is probably what most people would
> | say and you should have, thus, suspected
> | that it was not correct.
>
> See, you've learned from what you've, below,
> termed my "harangue" [as if I've not been
> aware that the stuff I routinely discuss is
> " 'Difficult' ". It routinely-is, and having to do
> what I See just Needs to be done is, to me,
> Genuinely-Difficult.
>
> | Indeed, animals (including humans) tend
> | to be extremely sensitive to stimuli correl-
> | ated with short delays to reinforcement,
> | even when they wind up obtaining far less
> | food per unit time.
>
> This's an =Extremely= routinely-occurring
> consequence of the neural-dynamics in-
> herent in "supersystem configuration".
>
> I posted the "excerpt" from AoK, Ap5 in ord-
> er to reiterate the salient stuff, inherent -- 
> specifically pointing-out the easily-observed
> supersystem configuration dynamics in a
> pigeon's "walking", "running", "flying" relative-
> TD E/I-Dependent behavioral-transitions.
>
> Such relative-TD E/I-Dependent behavioral-
> transitions occur =continually= 'within' neur-
> al dynamics -- for instance, they are what De-
> termines what a typist will do [=of course=
> with learned-preferences] when an 'error'
> occurs during their typing at a computer
> keyboard -- as when one "back-spaces" to
> eliminate a relatively-small and recent error,
> rather than going to the "mouse" and repos-
> itioning the cursor in a "swiping" motion to
> highlight the 'error'-text and resuming-typing.
>
> If the 'error' is relatively-larger, though, be-
> cause of the relatively-larger ~"sensory-motor
> template TD E/I(up) mismatch" [AoK, Ap5] in-
> herent, the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
> in the typist's "brain" will assert a supersystem
> configuration that activates the "mouse-swip-
> ing" 'error'-correction behavior rather than
> "back-spacing" through the relatively-lengthy
> character-string.
>
> There are [of course] =many= variations of
> these simple supersystem configuration dyn-
> amics with respect to which the TD E/I-min-
> imization mechanisms act Wonderously to
> converge-upon 'momentarily-appropriate' be-
> haviors.
>
> Behaviorism sees =none= of such stuff
> that's right-there, plain-to-See -- 'because'
> it's =in= the Behaviorist 'program' that it
> 'cannot' acknowledge the neural dynamics
> ['because' "they are ['supposedly'] "non-ob-
> servable" even though anyone who only
> looks can, in fact, See them [AoK is a Tut-
> orial in such Seeing, which is why there're
> numerous examples like the pigeon's "walk-
> ing", "running", "flying" supersystem config-
> uration dynamics in AoK.
>
> | Thus, in the simplified problem I gave you,
> | the pigeon would always peck the key lead-
> | ing to the short-delay small reinforcer.
>
> Without saying a =lot= more, your statement
> of "always"-ness, immediately-above, is 'just'
> Wrong. Truth is that a pigeon in a Skinner
> Box can be "induced" ["inductive learning",
> AoK, Ap5 [it's in the "excerpt" I posted]] to do
> =anything= within a pigeon's behavioral cap-
> abilities -- which is flat-out-obvious in the
> learning that underpins a naive-pigeon's
> coming to be 'functional'-to-criterion when
> it is in the Skinner Box [an extremely-unnat-
> ural 'environment'.]
>
> | When the amount on the alternative is very,
> | very large, the animal will choose the long-
> | delay large reinforcer.
>
> According to =Britannica=, what you say, im-
> mediately-above, is wrong -- all consistent-
> ly-correlated behaviors will tend to "exting-
> uish" as the net "delay" increases -- which is
> also flat-out-obvious with respect to very-
> long net "delays". It's as the net "delay" de-
> creases that behavioral-differentiation comes
> to be manifested -- be-cause, as above in my
> reply, the supersystem configuration dynamics
> "translate" relative-TD E/I into relatively-efficient-
> ly-correlated behavioral-Directionality.
>
> | The behavior is, of course, sensitive to man-
> | ipulation of most of the parameters of the
> | procedure.
>
> Yes. A Skinner Box can "induce" =any= behav-
> iors that a subject is capable of manifesting,
> but such says =nothing= about what a sub-
> ject, not 'locked in a box' will do. [This's the
> 'point' that I've repeatedly reiterated in replies
> to your posts -- that, be-cause, the experiment-
> er acts to =predetermine= the 'behavior' of the
> subject 'locked-in-the-box', the net result can
> =ONLY= be with respect to the =interactive=
> dynamics.
>
> Understand?
>
> The Behaviorist 'program' says absolutely
> =nothing= about "behavior". It outputs =only=
> subject-experimenter =interactive= stuff, and
> be-cause the experimenter can tune the 'box'
> to exert =any= Directed-'force' upon the sub-
> ject that is 'locked-in-the-box', the net result
> says absolutely =nothing= about the subject's
> "behavior". This's relevant with respect to stuff
> like "coerced 'confessions' " [torture-induced
> interactive-Directionality], which is =routinely=,
> if subtly, apparent whenever one Individual
> 'jumps-on' a second Individual who is "attend-
> ing" to stuff that's relatively-dissimilar than the
> stuff of the 'jumping-on' -- which says only that,
> yeah, the 'jumper' read the 'jumpee's relative
> TD E/I and 'saw' that, if the 'jumping-on' occurs
> 'now' it can 'take-advantage' of the fact that the
> 'jumpee' is attending to vastly-dissimilar stuff -- 
> but, "Duh?"... such is =just= the dynamics that
> are inherent in =any= predator-prey "stalking"
> behavior, but it's commonly [Falsely] 'inferred'
> by Behaviorists that such 'is something other
> than' predator-prey-stalking-behavior. [Why do
> you 'think', Dr. Sizemore, that I was so 'sweet'
> in the early stages of this current discussion
> of ours? It was be-cause I =Knew= that you
> had 'jumped-on' me in a predator-prey-stalk-
> ing 'way'. I saw you 'coming a mile away', and
> went immediately into a "information-gather-
> ing-optimization phase" [AoK, Ap5 & 7] sup-
> ersystem configuration [all the while =Honest-
> ly= Hoping that you'd not blunder-into circum-
> stances in which I 'had to' do what Needs to
> be done to Defend NDT -- which is =why= I
> posted the "excerpt" from AoK, Ap5. But you
> 'went-ahead' and =repeatedly= made it an
> 'all-or-nothing' thing with 'respect' to NDT [ev-
> en though I've, all along, Declared that that
> is the one thing that I've no 'right' to Tolerate.
>
> Good grief! I'd decided to just allow you to
> 'go away', but here you are, leaving me no
> 'choice'.
>
> | > I haven't been able to see that "t"
> | > makes any difference -- unless
> | > it's correlated with the pre-feeding
> | > "wait" 'times' -- and, when t is relatively-
> | > long, the pigeon pecks "red" 'because'
> | > its TD E/I increases in proportion to
> | > the pre-feeding "wait" -- so the pigeon
> | > will(?) peck "red" 'because' its primed-
> | > to-act as a result of the "wait"-induced
> | > TD E/I(up) that's occurring 'within' its
> | > nervous system -- even though peck-
> | > ing "red" =always= allows the pigeon
> | > to eat less than does pecking "green".
>
> The above was Confirmed in my reading
> in =Britannica= last 'night'.
>
> | No matter what t is, if the pigeon is con-
> | fronted by the choice between red and
> | green it pecks red (unless the amount
> | of food obtained by pecking green is
> | enormous).
>
> This's be-cause, as I'd written [above], of
> the relative TD E/I that's "induced" by the
> pigion's being "forcefully-incarcerated" in
> a Skinner Box. If that wasn't the case, the
> pigeon would "walk", "run", or "fly" to "look-
> elsewhere" for its sustinence.
>
> The =whole= of the Behaviorist perspective
> is fatally-skewed be-cause it "can't see the
> forest for the trees" in this way -- Tragedy
> has ensued as a 'result' of naive folks
> 'swallowing' the Behaviorist 'program' 'hook,
> line, and sinker' -- as in Police-'interrogation'
> in which, like the pigeon's, Individuals are
> forcefully-confined while the 'interrogators'
> do =anything= with 'respect' to the Individ-
> uals, and 'think' that they 'are doing' any-
> thing that's 'appropriate' -- when the =ONLY=
> thing that they're actually doing is "inducing"
> TD E/I(up) to occur 'within' to subject's nerv-
> ous system. The 'result' of acting-upon the
> absence-of-understanding inherent -- which
> has been =actively= fostered by the Behavior-
> ist 'program' includes the Tragedies of innum-
> erable 'convictions' and Deaths of =Innocent=
> Individuals.
>
> This happens be-cause the Behaviorist 'pro-
> gram' is completely-absent-understanding
> with respect to Truth-inherent in the Absolute-
> Necessity of Guarding-Free-Will [which Nec-
> essity is in-Truth [Absolute] be-cause the way
> in which nervous systems process in-formation
> [verb] does, in fact, reduce directly, and Direc-
> tionally [AoK, Ap8; ~"group-wise-induced shared
> TD E/I(up)"] to TD E/I-minimization, which does,
> in fact, reduce directly, and Directionally, to
> the one-way flow of energy, from order to dis-
> order, that is what's =described= by 2nd
> Thermo [WDB2T], 'around which' there is
> =no= 'way'.
>
> But the Behaviorist 'program' has, nevertheless,
> "induced" naive folks to 'move away from' Truth,
> inherent, thereby 'acting' to heap-up the =always=
> -occuring Consequences inherent in 'moving
> away from' Truth upon the naive-folks who're
> so-ab-used -- which, over the course of the last
> ~five 'years', has included the entire populations
> of The United States Of America, Iraq, Afghanistan,
> Palestine, Istarel, Egypt, Saudii Arabia, Iran, North
> Korea, China, Russia, and Africa.
>
> =All= of whom read Directionality with 'respect'
> to the TD E/I(up) that the 'america', "induced" by
> the absence-of-understanding that the Behavior-
> ist 'program' 'loves', has "induced" 'within' the
> nervous systems of these Populations -- which
> Directionality is in the anti-'america' Direction.
>
> The Behaviorist 'program' has 'gotten-away' with
> it's assertion of such Slaughtering-Tragedy be-
> cause the General Population was, in fact, naive
> with respect to how and why nervous systems
> process in-formation via 'blindly'-automated TD
> E/I-minimization, left-uncomprehended. [Which
> is Probably 'why' you 'jumped-on' me -- because
> my discussions of NDT's understanding have
> resulted in the occurrence of TD E/I(up) 'within'
> your nervous system which you -- Correctly -- 
> interpreted as being correlated-with the Fact
> that the Behaviorist 'program' is =Savagery=
> that NDT is 'moving toward' Eliminating. [NDT
> is.]
>
> | This is true when the pigeon chooses the "initial
> | link" that led to the red-green choice OR when
> | it chooses the link that precludes exposure to
> | red - but you present the choice anyway (as a
> | "probe trial").
>
> =Locked in a box= there exists no "choice".
>
> | So, in the full problem that I gave you, the
> | answer is that at small t values, the animal
> | pecks the right key in the "initial links" and
> | then chooses the short delay, small rein-
> | forcer. As t grows, however, it begins to
> | choose the left key in the initial link, thus
> | precluding itself from choosing red because
> | red is not an option. The results are generally
> | interpreted in terms of so-called "hyperbolic
> | discounting."
>
> "Hmmmm..." I'll have to do a Google[tm] on
> "hyperbolic discounting".
>
> | My motivation should be clear.
>
> It has been all along [going back 'years'].
>
> | You harangue this group
>
> I do routinely discuss 'Difficult' stuff here
> in b.n, but =only= in a Way that, at its base,
> =Honors= folks who Dare to actually =Do=
> Neuroscience.
>
> Think about it, and you'll See that this is
> True.
>
> It'd be Completely-non-sensical to expend
> the energy, that I do expend here in b.n in
> order to Communicate NDT's fundamentals
> to folks, if I did not Know that folks here in
> b.n are Courageous with respect to =Doing=
> Neuroscience.
>
> | with your "explanations" of complex human
> | behavior based on your, ummm, obscure
> | notions.
>
> Which =all= reduce Directly to the Proven
> Neuroscience Experimental results.
>
> Contrast such with what you've routinely
> done, over the 'years' here in b.n and in
> other NGs, and you'll see that I've under-
> stood all along, Dr. Sizemore, that you
> are 'unfamiliar' with Neuroscience.
>
> So who is it who actually "harangues" here
> in b.n?
>
> The one who Does Neuroscience in a
> Neuroscience discussion 'place', or the
> one who does not?
>
> | But can your notions really be used to
> | account for behavior? The answer appears
> | to be "no."
>
> Ho, ho, ho :-]
>
> "There is no hope for those who will not
> see."
>
> Yet, I've Guarded your Free WIll, hoping
> that you'd See.
>
> That failing, I've done what Needed to be
> done.
>
> Henceforth, the Behaviorist 'program'
> will be seen for the Savage, 'hate'-"in-
> ducing" stuff that it =is=.
>
> | > I experienced an analogous thing
> | > 'yesterday'.
> | >
> | > Went out to look for a car.
> | >
> | > Much walking, which left me weary.
> | >
> | > Saw some cars I would've liked to have,
> | > but, since I didn't want to take out a
> | > loan, I ended up paying ~4 times
> | > what it was worth for an 11-'year'-old
> | > car with a banged-in passenger door
> | > and rusting fender  relatively-low milage.
> | >
> | > In my insurance costs, I'll be paying
> | > what the cars worth every 'year'.
> | >
> | > It's not entirely-analogous, but I real-
> | > ized that I was 'pecking-thered-key :-]
> | >
> | > "Oh well."
> | >
> | > Taking out a loan was not a viable option
> | > for me.
>
> Even in the above sutff, I was trying to
> give you a way out of the Dead-End into
> which your 'jumping-on' me left you.
>
> You 'moved away from' Truth inherent.
>
> I've done what Needed to be done.
>
> Now, take what's left of your Being and
> 'go away' from me with your weak-kneed
> 'predatation'.
>
> [BTW, I do have one good thing to say about
> post-Pavlov 'behaviorism' -- it was be-cause
> I Saw, after Studying it as a Sophomore Under-
> graduate, that it [among other things that were,
> 'then', in-vogue] was, in fact, a Dead-End, that
> I decided to "look-elsewhere" using every-
> thing, =after Pavlov=, in 'behaviorism' as an
> "image" of what =NOT= to do with respect to
> =some= of the stuff that I'd have to seek-out :-]
>
> [Do you understand why I've responded so
> strongly?
>
> It has nothing to do with 'me' [the work I've
> done has been -- is being -- so widely-Plag-
> erized that there's nothing left of 'me' with
> respect to which I can be 'offended'.
>
> It has everything to do with the fact that you
> 'moved toward' "separating" =others= from
> NDT's Proven understanding.
>
> With respect to the former, I Choose to ~"turn
> the other cheek, go the extra mile, and give 'em
> my shirt too".
>
> With respect to the latter, my Obligation is
> Clear. If I allowed the understanding to be
> ab-used, I'd, 'then', be Culpable in the Sav-
> agery that absence-of-understanding inflicts.
>
> While Life remains in-me, I'll, therefore,
> =Never= Fail to do what Needs to be done
> with respect to such.]
>
> k. p. collins
>
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list