[Neuroscience] Re: Brain and awarness

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 31 18:06:41 EST 2006

<feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1143818658.126451.40440 at u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
>> <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143755256.942084.120790 at e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >> That is, we respond to the world, and our physiology mediates that
>> >> function.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > As I said .... if(darkening), then(move flagellum)
>> Oh - is that what the protozoan's protozounculus says?
> Oh wow. You can't even recognize a protozoan behaviorist reflex arc.

The reflex-arc is a physiological notion but, as far as I know, behaviorists 
have no problem with it. The behaviorist definition of a reflex involves an 
observed correlation between a class of stimuli and a class of responses.

> You will note I said IF(darkening). not IF(darkening perceived) ...

Not a very good description of a reflex arc - there are no words in there.

> The former obviously indicates that responsibility inheres to the
> environment, the latter [which, to re-iterate, I did not use] refers
> to action taken by the protozunculus [corrected spelling].

Ah yes - your beef with determinism. I haven't heard a cogent argument from 
you on this issue. It may be that there are truly random elements in the 
behavior of animals, but that doesn't mean that there is free-will. Does it 
Dan? Oh, and I hope you are not implying that the model of behavior for 
modern behaviorism is the reflex. In any event, Dan, my original point was 
that your description of the hitter's behavior says nothing more than that 
his behavior is partly under stimulus control of the pitcher's motion and 
that physiology somehow mediates that function. I hope that you weren't also 
saying that it is his brain that predicts the trajectory - that is like 
saying that lower-level processes are the same as the higher-level processes 
of which the lower are supposed to be a reduction. I guess it is possible, 
but that would be unprecedented in the history of science. That is sort of a 
charitable view. Anyway, though, I look forward to your explanation of why 
(human) behavior should not be viewed with the same deterministic attitude 
that characterizes the rest of science.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net