Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:14:37 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>What was at issue was the scenario posed by Cybulski to counter my "pigeons
>'have' concepts" post. That scenario was said to be an example of a
>behavioral episode that could not be due to operant conditioning. In that
>episode, a man is told (something like) "Place all pieces of lumber with
>this mark over here." The upshot, according to Cybulski, and echoed by you
>(that is not to say that that is all you said), is that the person cannot be
>responding on the basis of operant conditioning since the particular
>utterance in question had never been uttered in his presence. This scenario
>is what Cybulski's post was about. This was the core of his argument, and
>was part of your argument as well.
>

There is more than one argument here. Let me go ahead and enumerate
them. The others will appear below as they become relevant.

[1] Exactly what you said in this paragraph. In essence, new
utterances never spoken before cannot be operantly conditioned. The
argument is they must be parsed from a human that knows how words
modify each other's meanings in a grammatical context.
[end]

I have already conceded that the "rules" of grammer are operantly
conditioned. Also, I conceded that individual meanings of words are
operantly conditioned. If you don't like the word "meaning" replace
it with "socially accepted use."



>
>To respond, as a listener, in a fashion that is frequently reinforced by
>those around you. Your behavior as a listener has reinforced those who utter
>certain things, and that is why they say them. The listener, too, responds
>in the particular ways that he or she does because there are also
>reinforcers for the listener's behavior, even if it is sometimes just a
>"Thank you" (but in many circumstances, the "quality" of the thank you may
>be connected - and frequently is - with some sort of reciprocity in the
>future, and such utterances are able to reinforce behavior). And the
>listeners behavior is reinforced in other ways when they "follow rules" and
>"advice."

I already conceded that the behavior is obtained via reinforcement.
But I also said the person is behaving based on the MEANING of the
utterance. They cannot behave unless they first extract this
meaning. It is the meaning the behavior is reacting to. Allan was
not responding to the mere dead sound of the utterance to give his
behavior. His behavior was a reaction to the meaning of the sentence
he arrived at on the fly in realtime. (more on this later).


>
>WHat is the "appropriate" behavior? You even say
>> that Wittgenstein used the word.
>
>No, I said that W. used the word "training."
>

No you specifically posted this:

G.S.: "Wittgenstein held that there could be no private language
because of the way that so-called "meanings" are established. And how
is that? He says directly that it is because of the training (his
word) that results in the appropriate behavior of the listener and
speaker"

You did indeed attribute the word "appropriate" to Wittgenstein. Do
not back out of this. Tell me what you meant by a behavior being
"appropriate" here.


>
>But the "understanding" and the "meaning" is simply inferred from the
>behavior. It is like saying that sleeping pills put you to sleep because
>they have a sleep-inducing property. People "understand" something to the
>extent that they respond in certain ways. People "share meanings" in the
>sense that that they are both subject to the same cultural practices with
>respect to reinforcing utterances and responses to those utterances.
>

This is exactly where we disagree. When a dog responds to commands
such as "sit!" and "stay!" the dog makes no other connections with the
sounds coming out of the trainer's mouth other than the direct
behavior. Let me state the next argument since I am now ready.

[2] Pigeon's and dogs that are trained to respond to the sounds of
commands is QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT from what a human does with a
command formed by a sequential sentence of tokens.
[end]

Now let me elaborate. Your religious indoctrination to behaviorism
makes you say there is nothing in the world except the command itself
(its mere sound) and the behavior that (eventually) results. This is
true of dogs and pigeons following commands, yes. But it cannot be
true of a human being de-parsing a sentence made of tokens. There is
clearly something OUTSIDE OF the mere sound of the words. How can I
claim this? Consider parts-of-speech. Many words' part-of-speech
depends on its location and context in a sentence. Therefore this
information is not contained in the SOUND OF THE WORLD alone. It is
produced via the placement of the word grammatically in a context.

In music, when notes are strung togethor in a sequence to form a
melody, they are mere sound. But when notes are harmonized, they
produce meanings ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere reaction to each note
individually. When an E-flat is sounded with a B below, it acts as
a "major third" with a particular harmony. But when the VERY SAME
NOTE is sounded with a C, it acts as a "major third" with a very
different harmony. The "meaning" of the notes are affected by their
harmonic context created by the notes around them.

We do not see pigeons or dogs mixing a command with a context to
produce some "grammatical, contextual" reaction to a command. On
the other hand, we see humans doing this all the time, in realtime,
often succeeding at it correctly for days on end. There is very much
a sense that the rules of "combination- grammer- context" are able to
produce an unlimited sets of unique utterances which are immediately
understood by those animals who have a cortex capable of making the
rule-based mixture of these ingredients.

It is exactly this mixture taking place within the brain that you are
ignoring. I already conceded to you that the final, ultimate, end
behavior is determined by operant conditioning. But this is a
gestalt perception that oversimplifies a process that has many steps
on the road from utter ---to---> behave.

Before you think I'm agreeing with you, remember Allan responded to
the meaning of the utterance, not to the mere sound of it. Dogs and
pigeons have done nothing but associate sounds with behavior.


>
>On the contrary, it clearly is made up - just like the "sleep-inducing
>properties." And the terms are equally vacuous from a scientific standpoint.
>

Your Behaviorist demigods of the early 20th century had no choice but
to "infer" things from outside behavior. They did not have MRI. And
they could not control genes to create "doogie mice". It does not
mean that modern neuroscience has to follow suit. We now know there
is processing going on the brain above and beyond neuronal plasticity.


>
>We know
>> what appropriateness is because we are also English speakers and there
>> is an agreed-upon MEANING to these utterances.
>>
>Needless to say, I feel I have dealt with this.
>

Actually you avoided it. You came 99.99% of the way to saying that
"meaning" is socially conventional. But then you stopped yourself,
because your Behaviorist mantra told you that you are "not allowed to
refer to meanings" even when they are all around you and in the
people you talk to.


>
>There is no question that my behavior is a function of my history. The
>implication, though, is that 1.) yours is not and, 2.) that there is no
>science behind it. You are wrong on both counts. It is, however, clear that
>one cannot "prove" that behaviorism, or your pedestrian, mainstream
>mentalism, is "correct." These are philosophies.
>

While behavior is a function of history, there are agreed-upon uses of
words within a population. The meaning of "tree" is in many ways
outside of you, as it is outside of me. The word "tree" and its use
predates both of our births.



>
>I have repeatedly explained it, but I have explained it at the behavioral
>level. I have told you how to make it happen. I have told you what ontogeny
>is necessary.
>

Yes I am aware that you explained it at that level. But that level is
ABOVE a neuronal explanation. Its almost like your behaviorism is
making you deny that mammals have an organ in their head that does
some function. You can't admit the brain is DOING ANYTHING because
then you would have to refer to mental events, which your behaviorist
mantras deny you from doing.


>
>Obviously this behavior could
>> not possibly have been operantly conditioned.
>
>Yes, it could, as I have repeatedly described.
>

Ok ok..the final, ultimate, end behavior is determined by operant
conditioning. But Allan was responding to meaning of the utterance,
not its mere sound. (as pigeons and dogs do).

I already said way up in this thread that you simply ignore or leave
out parts of the language process that doesn't fit your theory.


>[snip]
>mark over here" is a matter of operant conditioning. No one knows how
>contingencies of reinforcement alter the brain such that animals behave
>differently in the future.
>

Nonsense. That statement was true in 1935 when your Behaviorist
Demigods were running around triumphant. They did not have
neuroscience. We have it today.

Today we know exactly how neuronal plasticity works at the chemical
level on the surface of synapses. Behaviorism fell out of general
favor precisely because neuroscientists then realized that plasticity
is only the tip of the iceberg. They found out that the brain is an
alphabet soup of receptors, binders, and neurotransmitters. And
there are several different functional groups of neuronal cells.

What are all these chemicals doing exactly? They are moving around,
processing something...doing things. But you can't refer to these
things because it that would be admitting to *gulp* ... mental events.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind
    ... >>behavioral episode that could not be due to operant conditioning. ... >>utterance in question had never been uttered in his presence. ... If you don't like the word "meaning" replace ... > true of dogs and pigeons following commands, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind
    ... is explicable in terms of operant conditioning. ... No, word order, grammar and syntax, are composed of operant responses. ... > come upon its correct meaning as the speaker intended is not operantly ... >>new trees by their similarity to the TEMPLATE HANDFUL. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind
    ... is explicable in terms of operant conditioning. ... > I never made any concessions to "an effect on the listener". ... the fact that a person responds appropriately to a novel utterance. ... There is this thing called MEANING which you continue ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind
    ... >novel sentences, is explicable in terms of operant conditioning. ... There is this thing called MEANING which you continue ... The meaning of the utterance is ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The structure of a self-conscious mind
    ... Well, it would sort of, you know, account for "semantics," as well as ... > a meaning not existent in any of the constituent words. ... conceding so much to operant conditioning through me for a loop. ... the physiology that mediates behavior). ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
Loading