rscanlon at nycap.rr.com (ray scanlon) wrote in message news:<363d693e.0409010606.7b12d802 at posting.google.com>...
> Glen M. Sizemore writes:
>> > GS: The modification of behavior by experience is the usual definition of
> > learning. Of course, operant conditioning is defined by a change in
> > frequency of an originally spontaneous (at the level of behavior) response
> > (defined by its effect on the environment).
>> Perfectly true, if you are a behaviorist. But for brain people,
> learning is a change in synaptic strength due to neural activity. The
> neural activity may, or may not, rise to the level of motor activity.
>> Behavioral science is a lovely discipline, but it is a different
> discipline. Neural science must be reducible to molecular biology. I
> do not believe that behaviorists accept this stricture. I may be
> wrong, of course. I am willing to listen and to learn.
Idiot Behaviourists can't even accept the stricture that
anything other than *synthentic* DNA exists.
Which is why almost all them are Mathematicians, Caltech AI Philosophers,
Neo-Skinner Philosophers, TV Doctors, and tree surgeons.
And paid minimum wage, if they're paid anything.
Neural "science" is automatically reducible to
molecular biology, since neural "science" has
the curious property, that's it's not a science.
It's a group of inbred communist-chemists who
wouldn't know the difference between a science,
a masturbating monkey, and a quark, which is why
they're not even paid minimum-wage, they're paid the NULL SET.
>> > Under vocalization are the phonemes-also
> > provided by the DNA.
> > GS: I doubt that the last can be backed up. References?
>> I never, ever, provide references. I would never, ever, think of
> asking you to provide references.
>>> > RS: Some synapses in the nervous system can be altered by experience. This
> > allows us to string the phonemes together into language.
> > GS: This is a hopelessly sophomoric view of verbal operant behavior. But let
> 's talk about the simpler behavior - but still operant behavior.
>> No! Let's not. The subject is the brain, not operant behavior. The
> subject is motor program generators. The DNA provides the generators;
> we hear them when the infant babbles.