Re: Qualia Question

CORRECTION:

I should have written:
"there is no reason to believe that what we are doing when we read or talk
silently is NOT the same thing, or some of the same things, that we do when
we read or speak overtly, but the responses are not easily detectable by
observers other than the behaving individual.

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20050706235347.150$aR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1120567027.403641.54250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
> > > "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1120308725.826149.111480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The point is, of course, that the implication of your post was
that
> > > > > Skinnerians argue that people do not have feelings or introspect,
> but
> > > this
> > > > > is not what they argue. They argue that what is introspected is
> > > behavior,
> > > > > and behavior is physical, though it is not a thing.
> > > >
> > > > Well, we don't introspect things like speech or gestures.
> > >
> > >
> > > We don't? Do you ever read silently or otherwise talk to your self
> silently?
> >
> > Yes, AFAICT. A behaviourist could insist that there is some
> > sub-vocalisation going on. I could respond that they are just
> > hypothesising that to keep the theory afloat.
>
> The term "subvocalization" is yours, not mine (this is relevant, but I
won't
> mention why right now). In any event, there is no reason to believe that
> what we are doing when we read or talk silently is the same thing, or some
> of the same things, that we do when we read or speak overtly, but the
> responses are not easily detectable by observers other than the behaving
> individual. In addition, intensity, or force is a differentiable property
of
> behavior. That is, if we selectively reinforce progressively smaller (or
> larger) magnitude responses, the distribution of measured force for the
> response class shifts accordingly. It strikes me as extremely plausible
that
> behavior can occur at levels of intensity too small to be easily detected.
>
>
>
> In practice, theories in most sciences are not rejected outright by a
single
> failure and, thus, there is always the danger that one will nurse a theory
> that should be allowed to die. But the notion that psychological phenomena
> are to be understood as "behavior" or "related to behavior" is more of an
> assumption than a hypothesis, though I could suggest ways in which
behavior
> that is not publicly observable may still be shown to be behavior.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > And gestures are accompanied by proprioception and kinesthesia that
can
> be
> > > felt.
> >
> > So ? I can introspect without gesticulating.
>
> You are missing the context of that statement. You originally said
something
> about not introspecting bodily movements. I was just pointing out that, to
> the extent you may observe limb position and movement via proprioceptive
and
> kinesthetic stimuli, you are, in a sense, introspecting.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I suppsoe
> > > > they mean we introspect hormone levels and nerual firings -- which
> > > > are indeed physical if not things. But we don't introspect them
> > > > *as* such -- we feel anger, not "adrenalin" -- and that is the whole
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And, no, radical behaviorism does not, at least in my opinion, argue
> that
> > > what is felt is "hormone levels and nerual firings." What is felt is
our
> own
> > > behavior, not the physiological events that mediate behavioral
function.
> And
> > > so there is no problem other than coming to grips with the fact that
> > > "things" like perception and attention are kinds of behavior, and it
is
> > > this behavior that we introspect, as well as "extrospect" (i.e. we
> sometimes
> > > observe our own public behavior as well as private behavior).
> >
> > So you say. There are far too many epicycles in your theory for my
> > liking.
>
> Well, I have mostly dealt with this already. It is disingenuous, IMO, to
> portray the central assumption of behaviorism as a post hoc modification
of
> a theory. Behaviorism's assumptions are Spartan and they are pretty
> explicit. However, as I said, I can think of experiments that could be
seen
> as revealing the assumption to be a testable hypothesis.
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Guinness World Records: scientific illiteracy?
    ... > The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that ... > inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects ... > travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers) ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Guinness World Records: scientific illiteracy?
    ... The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that ... even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are ... receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph / ... travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers) ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Are you in?
    ... If you for some weird reason your league falls into the catagory of ... sure that you have observers. ... There really is no excuse for not having observers or lines at ... no lines is even more of a reason for observers. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Tell me why Einsteins SR was wrong.
    ... The laws of physics will be valid for all observers. ... I'll try and summarise the responses over the weekend. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • re:Paradox from Relativity of Simultaneity?
    ... I think these responses ... out how the observers would be able to read the signs, ... seems to me to be a paradox whereby each observer thinks that he is ... reference and out of synch in the other. ...
    (sci.physics)