Re: Mechanical Dualism versus Naturalized Epistemology



"JAK" <jak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138474442.180086.155810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Michael, I'll await your response.
>
> Glen, in deference to the task before Michael, I would still like you
> to isolate a specific, fundamental experiment as a target for
> discussion. Michael's point is well taken. It's tough to "boil the
> ocean" (or even a lake). Please declare something a bit more
> manageable.
>
> Thanks - JAK
>

Well, I did talk about a class of experiments. In general, the experiments I
am talking about are concerned with the fundamental nature of conditioning;
is it a temporal phenomenon, or does it require the notion of some long-term
correlations between stimuli or between responses and consequences. These
experiments must be considered together - that is where it becomes
confusing. But, anyway, it seems to me that Michael's task is not that
great. He made some assertions about learning and probability distributions
etc. I would like a basic, simple statement from him concerning how these
issues relate to classical and operant conditioning.



It seems to me that the old "temporal contiguity notion" is holding its own.
I lean in that direction for a couple of reasons. A big reason is that
"unsignalled, delayed reinforcement, produces lower rates of response than
immediate reinforcement. In order for correlation to play any role, the
relevant time scale would have to be very, very short. But the noise at such
time scales is so great that one wonders how differences (between immediate
and delayed reinforcement) could be detectable. Plus, there's the whole
issue of the "molar" view starting out talking about long-term correlations,
then being forced to squeeze the time scale down to one that approaches that
at which the "contiguity" people operate. There are other reasons, but the
issue is sort of complex. That complexity, and the large experimental
literature that exists in a filed that Michael has denigrated, is part of
the source of my challenge to him.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mechanical Dualism versus Naturalized Epistemology
    ... >> Michael, I'll await your response. ... > the relevant time scale would have to be very, ... > immediate and delayed reinforcement) could be detectable. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Mechanical Dualism versus Naturalized Epistemology
    ... >>> Michael, I'll await your response. ... >> the relevant time scale would have to be very, ... >> immediate and delayed reinforcement) could be detectable. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Healthier discussions
    ... Michael has been on target from the very start. ... The Chinese response is, "Nali, nali." ... harmonious outcomes truly benefiting all, ... better responses to people in the margins of our community. ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule In The Mirror
    ... I don't think that there is an objective time scale in any evolutionary ... >> Natural selection works at ALL time scales. ... But, based on my guess as to what is meant, my response is: ... > length in the adaptation of organisms to a novel environment. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Homeless smomeless... somebody has got to live under a bridge!
    ... well, Michael, why not?? ... With "moral watchdogs" like you and O'Leary ... Dia has never heard of these surrulous allegations you have attempted ... > Perhaps my low key response to you wasn't as clear as I hoped. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)