Towards the conclusion of my previous post (28 March, 2012), I wrote something like this:
If the public had the evidence that demonstrates how external stimuli can move whole organisms
from a distance, behavior analysts would surely gain support and consensus.
Experts could identify words as the remote stimuli and the conditioned reinforcers, which persons
all over our planet are able to see, hear and speak; read and write. And repeat.
Though words are intangible, they influence people in many penetrating ways.
I would like to add: words affect humans even more than pills, tonics or stimulants are supposed to.
Words reflect reality in myriad ways - literally different sides, angles and points of view - depending
on where people stand, what they're afraid of and what attracts them.
Hence, words could be the cause of enmity or the reason for goodwill.
I feel sure folk the world over - despite this battle of words - experience common need and struggle
for hope. I now wish to conclude with an optimistic reminder: there are still plenty of valid words,
phrases, sentences - meaningful mottos and messages - which may be chosen with care.
And spread to further more empathy, less cruelty, and greater appreciation of normalcy.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
Another view of radical behaviorism.
Crediting what people actually do, might turn out to be a number one topic in the 21st. century.
Here's hoping all those with ears, eyes and a brain in the head, will vote for their rights to proclaim
straightaway: humans - not their organs - observe and recognize stimuli in their environment.
Let's not forget: they respond to meaningful stimuli due to experience with conditioning processes:
stimuli outside the head and the body.
Of course, we already know animals sense and feel and react to stimuli and consequences.
Many researchers and nonprofessionals fight for their rights; important for our welfare too.
Just the same, for the moment let's think of ourselves as members of a species in urgent need
of protection from an undue widespread personification of physiological entities.
For instance, there can be no doubt that genetic expertise can save human beings.
Thus I trust geneticists find what they consistently refer to as 'genes'. And still, I cannot imagine
how genes receive information; and then spread their coded messages, through ribonucleic acid.
That sounds more like metaphor than a factual description of a chemical reaction [cf.1].
After all, men, women and children habitually display and relay information.
One ought to distinguish between chemical bonding and human socialisation.
With such a rule, we could assert:
though obviously organs are needed for us to act as we do, environments influence organs too;
And we might reconsider other parts of the body, fluids and tissues.
For example, saliva, the digestive enzyme in the salivary glands. [cf.2]
Reading this account of saliva on the internet, I was upset: no mention of Pavlov; they completely
forgot that the glands were active before food even touched the mouth.
Nevertheless, there are professionals who haven't forgotten Pavlov's experiments.
In a detailed article, R.W.A. Linden [3], mentions gustatory and olfactory sensation in connection
with chemoreceptors in the mouth and the nose. He says, hundreds of chemicals stimulate receptor cells but controversy exists on whether the combination of 4 basic tastes
(salt, sour, sweet, bitter) adequately describes all the human gustatory experience.
The author recalls Pavlov's work on Conditioned Reflexes:
" Reflex secretion of saliva from the salivary glands under the tongue and in the cheeks is stimulated by chewing,
taste and smell, to varying degrees. And, as Ivan Pavlov demonstrates in his classical experiments on dogs, the
simple form of unconscious learning known as conditioning couples the reflex secretion of saliva to the familiar
signs of an impending meal - the sound of a dinner bell, the clatter of crockery, the sight of the food."
'Learning' may be 'unconscious', but the research - i.e. teaching - was designed conditioning.
To the above, we might add that the dogs and other species, including the human, recognize
those familiar stimuli and connect them with food ... and from a distance.
Thus in order to eat and drink in this world, it is hardly realistic to wait until food is brought
to you. Better if you go shopping or catch it yourself - whatever the case may be.
In any event, people and other organisms are typically drawn to the very sight and the sound
of nourishment ... from afar ... and especially when hungry or thirsting for water.
Like persons, other creatures may also be repulsed or disgusted by odours and flavors.
Laboratory dogs for example, reject acid substance: they shake their head violently, opening
their mouth, while pushing the solution out with their tongue, together with the saliva.
All those are normal movements, natural phenomena that maintain the animal's health.
But searching for primary inner causes goes on and evidence of distant stimulation is ignored:
They say:
"At some point the brain must perform a comparison between the activity in several different nerve fibres
in order to decide what the taste actually is." [3]
Yet Pavlov's experiments show audio-visual stimuli come first and the dogs react immediately.
The data imply this: had the dogs been deaf and blind, nothing special would have occurred -
not in the brain or the gland - nor in the neuromuscular system - that we know must be activated
for licking lips and turning one's head to where food is about to appear ... which the animals did!
The dogs did see and hear, and - within a split second - they decided accordingly;
they understood food's on the way, they recalled what happened before and expected this again.
Associative feats on the part of the researchers who worked together with the animal subjects!
Crediting animals with sense, cognition and feeling, we begin to appreciate human qualities;
and then we are more aware of differences between physiological process versus the cause
and effects in personal relationships among individuals on a social level of observation.
Persons - not their brain - expect, decide, recall or forget.
Inner entities never see life outside, don't choose moral alternatives, cannot pass judgments.
No cell or fluid - people recommend how to improve perceptible and accountable dialogues.
Gene and nucleic acids don't look and listen.
Whereas humans do all this, quite naturally.
And should we be bored, we can shut our eyes, ignore the sound and think about something else.
Individuals don't have to look and listen: they may merely turn away and go in another direction.
And this is where Credit Where Credit Is Due enters the picture:
we value unforced, spontaneous motion, in our everyday living.
Moreover, we could discuss external effects upon other physiological organs and systems.
The heart and lungs, for instance, [cf.4] are vital for breathing and respiratory processes;
" First the body breathes in the air which is sucked through the nose or mouth and down through
the trachea (windpipe). .. The trachea divides into two tubes called bronchi. These carry air into
each lung. Inside the lung, the tubes divide into smaller and smaller tubes ... At the end of each
of these tubes are small air balloons called alveoli.
" Capillaries, which are small blood vessels with thin walls, are wrapped around these alveolies.
The walls are so thin and close to each other that the air easily seeps through. In this way, oxygen
seeps through into the bloodstream and carbon dioxide, in the bloodstream, seeps through into the
alveoli, and is then removed from the body when we breathe out. "
We might say inhaling oxygen keeps us alive as does, exhaling carbon dioxide.
The blood transports oxygen and nutrients to the cells while waste is carried out of the body.
And the heart is the muscular organ that keeps this entire transport system in motion.
If the public had evidence to show how external stimuli move whole organisms from afar,
scientists would surely gain global consensus.
Experts could identify words as distant conditioned stimuli and reinforcers that persons
all over the planet are able to see and hear, speak and write, read and repeat.
Although words are intangible they influence people in many powerful ways.
Words can make us do anything; not just drive each other to mad extremes or cause euphoria;
not just make us fear (and stimulate adrenaline) or cry (and activate the tear glands).
On the contrary: words can make us burst into laughter (inhale oxygen, exhale CO 2), bring us
close; quicken our pace if we're late, let us slow down if we're too busy (lowering heart rate).
In short: words can do more than cause stress. Words can spread happiness.
Social interactions inevitably produce internal effects amongst the protagonists.
I suppose everyone knows this, but in most contexts such events don't always register.
Not surprising, since only unusual circumstances make us aware of something inside
like say: muscle contracting, mouth going dry, face getting hot, heart beating strongly;
whereas in normal routine situations, that is what people feel: normal and healthy.
A Look Inside the Human Body isn't the same as introspection, which has to do with trying
to see one's own mental activity, rather than watch others and pay attention to their mobility;
what makes them flee or turn around or go in a forward direction.
And why - and for how long - they deliberately stay in one place.
" Should scientists synthesize a hormone that causes fear ? " [cf. 5]
What a misleading query! It illustrates errors - with reference to causes and effects - which scientists might correct for furthering progress. The theme is indeed mutual understanding,
more positive language and healthier communication.
And it just so happens, the tongue is one of our most impressive muscular organs [cf. 6]
Words are mightier that the sword matches reality, perhaps even more than we thought.
Hence - for the sake of clarity - we ought to remind ourselves: our organs aren't people!
As wonderful as our parts are, groups of individuals do wonders too and for the better!
The ear can't hear, an eye can't see, the brain never looks at what is in front or behind;
the heart can't feel, blue blood is not aristocratic; bile doesn't mean melancholy; cells have no ethics, kidneys no conscience; nasal and lingual chemoreceptors have no way to tell if a taste
repels or attracts.
So long as we credit people with memory, senses and feeling and movement in a healthy direction,
we can stop looking for some knowledgeable entity inside the body.
Personally, I see no other way.
With confidence as individuals, we could proclaim: no cells can display human performance.
And so it becomes easier to resolve old argument over control, prediction, and reconditioning.
By the way: prediction isn't very different from expectation:
when or where you expect sunshine, you can also predict it;
when or where you predict sunshine, you can also expect it.
_______________________________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uracil
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva
[3] http://www.answers.com/topic/taste-an-smell
[4] http://warriers.warren.k12.us/dburke/bodyindex.htm
[5] http://io9.com/5325238/should/scientists-synthesize-a-hormone-that-causes-fear
[6] http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/tongue.htm
Crediting what people actually do, might turn out to be a number one topic in the 21st. century.
Here's hoping all those with ears, eyes and a brain in the head, will vote for their rights to proclaim
straightaway: humans - not their organs - observe and recognize stimuli in their environment.
Let's not forget: they respond to meaningful stimuli due to experience with conditioning processes:
stimuli outside the head and the body.
Of course, we already know animals sense and feel and react to stimuli and consequences.
Many researchers and nonprofessionals fight for their rights; important for our welfare too.
Just the same, for the moment let's think of ourselves as members of a species in urgent need
of protection from an undue widespread personification of physiological entities.
For instance, there can be no doubt that genetic expertise can save human beings.
Thus I trust geneticists find what they consistently refer to as 'genes'. And still, I cannot imagine
how genes receive information; and then spread their coded messages, through ribonucleic acid.
That sounds more like metaphor than a factual description of a chemical reaction [cf.1].
After all, men, women and children habitually display and relay information.
One ought to distinguish between chemical bonding and human socialisation.
With such a rule, we could assert:
though obviously organs are needed for us to act as we do, environments influence organs too;
And we might reconsider other parts of the body, fluids and tissues.
For example, saliva, the digestive enzyme in the salivary glands. [cf.2]
Reading this account of saliva on the internet, I was upset: no mention of Pavlov; they completely
forgot that the glands were active before food even touched the mouth.
Nevertheless, there are professionals who haven't forgotten Pavlov's experiments.
In a detailed article, R.W.A. Linden [3], mentions gustatory and olfactory sensation in connection
with chemoreceptors in the mouth and the nose. He says, hundreds of chemicals stimulate receptor cells but controversy exists on whether the combination of 4 basic tastes
(salt, sour, sweet, bitter) adequately describes all the human gustatory experience.
The author recalls Pavlov's work on Conditioned Reflexes:
" Reflex secretion of saliva from the salivary glands under the tongue and in the cheeks is stimulated by chewing,
taste and smell, to varying degrees. And, as Ivan Pavlov demonstrates in his classical experiments on dogs, the
simple form of unconscious learning known as conditioning couples the reflex secretion of saliva to the familiar
signs of an impending meal - the sound of a dinner bell, the clatter of crockery, the sight of the food."
'Learning' may be 'unconscious', but the research - i.e. teaching - was designed conditioning.
To the above, we might add that the dogs and other species, including the human, recognize
those familiar stimuli and connect them with food ... and from a distance.
Thus in order to eat and drink in this world, it is hardly realistic to wait until food is brought
to you. Better if you go shopping or catch it yourself - whatever the case may be.
In any event, people and other organisms are typically drawn to the very sight and the sound
of nourishment ... from afar ... and especially when hungry or thirsting for water.
Like persons, other creatures may also be repulsed or disgusted by odours and flavors.
Laboratory dogs for example, reject acid substance: they shake their head violently, opening
their mouth, while pushing the solution out with their tongue, together with the saliva.
All those are normal movements, natural phenomena that maintain the animal's health.
But searching for primary inner causes goes on and evidence of distant stimulation is ignored:
They say:
"At some point the brain must perform a comparison between the activity in several different nerve fibres
in order to decide what the taste actually is." [3]
Yet Pavlov's experiments show audio-visual stimuli come first and the dogs react immediately.
The data imply this: had the dogs been deaf and blind, nothing special would have occurred -
not in the brain or the gland - nor in the neuromuscular system - that we know must be activated
for licking lips and turning one's head to where food is about to appear ... which the animals did!
The dogs did see and hear, and - within a split second - they decided accordingly;
they understood food's on the way, they recalled what happened before and expected this again.
Associative feats on the part of the researchers who worked together with the animal subjects!
Crediting animals with sense, cognition and feeling, we begin to appreciate human qualities;
and then we are more aware of differences between physiological process versus the cause
and effects in personal relationships among individuals on a social level of observation.
Persons - not their brain - expect, decide, recall or forget.
Inner entities never see life outside, don't choose moral alternatives, cannot pass judgments.
No cell or fluid - people recommend how to improve perceptible and accountable dialogues.
Gene and nucleic acids don't look and listen.
Whereas humans do all this, quite naturally.
And should we be bored, we can shut our eyes, ignore the sound and think about something else.
Individuals don't have to look and listen: they may merely turn away and go in another direction.
And this is where Credit Where Credit Is Due enters the picture:
we value unforced, spontaneous motion, in our everyday living.
Moreover, we could discuss external effects upon other physiological organs and systems.
The heart and lungs, for instance, [cf.4] are vital for breathing and respiratory processes;
" First the body breathes in the air which is sucked through the nose or mouth and down through
the trachea (windpipe). .. The trachea divides into two tubes called bronchi. These carry air into
each lung. Inside the lung, the tubes divide into smaller and smaller tubes ... At the end of each
of these tubes are small air balloons called alveoli.
" Capillaries, which are small blood vessels with thin walls, are wrapped around these alveolies.
The walls are so thin and close to each other that the air easily seeps through. In this way, oxygen
seeps through into the bloodstream and carbon dioxide, in the bloodstream, seeps through into the
alveoli, and is then removed from the body when we breathe out. "
We might say inhaling oxygen keeps us alive as does, exhaling carbon dioxide.
The blood transports oxygen and nutrients to the cells while waste is carried out of the body.
And the heart is the muscular organ that keeps this entire transport system in motion.
If the public had evidence to show how external stimuli move whole organisms from afar,
scientists would surely gain global consensus.
Experts could identify words as distant conditioned stimuli and reinforcers that persons
all over the planet are able to see and hear, speak and write, read and repeat.
Although words are intangible they influence people in many powerful ways.
Words can make us do anything; not just drive each other to mad extremes or cause euphoria;
not just make us fear (and stimulate adrenaline) or cry (and activate the tear glands).
On the contrary: words can make us burst into laughter (inhale oxygen, exhale CO 2), bring us
close; quicken our pace if we're late, let us slow down if we're too busy (lowering heart rate).
In short: words can do more than cause stress. Words can spread happiness.
Social interactions inevitably produce internal effects amongst the protagonists.
I suppose everyone knows this, but in most contexts such events don't always register.
Not surprising, since only unusual circumstances make us aware of something inside
like say: muscle contracting, mouth going dry, face getting hot, heart beating strongly;
whereas in normal routine situations, that is what people feel: normal and healthy.
A Look Inside the Human Body isn't the same as introspection, which has to do with trying
to see one's own mental activity, rather than watch others and pay attention to their mobility;
what makes them flee or turn around or go in a forward direction.
And why - and for how long - they deliberately stay in one place.
" Should scientists synthesize a hormone that causes fear ? " [cf. 5]
What a misleading query! It illustrates errors - with reference to causes and effects - which scientists might correct for furthering progress. The theme is indeed mutual understanding,
more positive language and healthier communication.
And it just so happens, the tongue is one of our most impressive muscular organs [cf. 6]
Words are mightier that the sword matches reality, perhaps even more than we thought.
Hence - for the sake of clarity - we ought to remind ourselves: our organs aren't people!
As wonderful as our parts are, groups of individuals do wonders too and for the better!
The ear can't hear, an eye can't see, the brain never looks at what is in front or behind;
the heart can't feel, blue blood is not aristocratic; bile doesn't mean melancholy; cells have no ethics, kidneys no conscience; nasal and lingual chemoreceptors have no way to tell if a taste
repels or attracts.
So long as we credit people with memory, senses and feeling and movement in a healthy direction,
we can stop looking for some knowledgeable entity inside the body.
Personally, I see no other way.
With confidence as individuals, we could proclaim: no cells can display human performance.
And so it becomes easier to resolve old argument over control, prediction, and reconditioning.
By the way: prediction isn't very different from expectation:
when or where you expect sunshine, you can also predict it;
when or where you predict sunshine, you can also expect it.
_______________________________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uracil
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saliva
[3] http://www.answers.com/topic/taste-an-smell
[4] http://warriers.warren.k12.us/dburke/bodyindex.htm
[5] http://io9.com/5325238/should/scientists-synthesize-a-hormone-that-causes-fear
[6] http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/tongue.htm
Monday, March 5, 2012
Technology
Last week something extraordinary happened.
Distant relatives whose existence I never suspected came to light: photographs
of my parents and brother, from 1930 -1942, provided rare emotional moments.
Genealogy wasn't my hobby, but on this occasion, I have to admit it is exciting.
I won't bring convoluted stories as to how this occurred but today I worked out there
must have been a chain of at least 8 persons from Kenya, England, Germany, the US
and Israel who were involved before the personal link appeared, out of the blue, on
my computer.
" The world is small!" Alon said. I said:
" I think it's not so much that the world is small, but that people are now able to
communicate over very long distances."
Including telephone and television; electronic postage;
camera; moving pictures; moving pictures with sound;
videos and tape recorders; and fax machines;
And BOOKS! The printing press! Newspapers!
Someone may want to make a chronological chart showing how the technologies
have evolved over the ages and spread over oceans and continents on our planet.
All that has fascinating implications with respect to verbal behavior.
Still, it is face-to-face short-distance dialogue which started all this. *
And these conversations continue today - begging for further functional analysis of
the types known as reflex and operant conditioning.
Just with unrestrained animals, free to go from place to place, deciding whether to
go on with a meal or move to another key for a drink.
Teaching techniques that Pavlov began and Skinner and others extended to children
at home, and in classrooms, need further expansion within and beyond a laboratory.
There is far too much fear and suffering - mutual hatred and violence - in the world.
Seeing when and where subjects move, permits researchers to study normalisation.
Governments and nations need information on general deceleration:
less coercion - no undue intimidation. And the same could be said for mobilisation:
we need more data on attractive stimulus control with correction and reinforcement.
More knowledge is needed to preserve flora and fauna within viable environments.
Negative vs positive objectives are basically matters of relative frequencies:
the number of rules and regulations that limit actions and force locomotion, compared
with spontaneous rest for leisure or pleasure and additional ways of appreciation. **
In other words, we need socialisation with Do's and Don'ts in healthier combinations:
voluntary and good-natured cooperation among individuals for common humane aims.
I trust readers weigh such matters and commence much-needed discourse:
the welfare of our offspring and of future generations hangs in the balance.
___________________________
* Edward R. Murrow
Just because the microphone in front of you amplifies your voice around the world, is no reason to
think we have any more wisdom than we had when our voices could reach only from one end of the
bar to the other.
** Then - with a sigh of relief - we might say with Will Rogers:
Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for.
13 March, 2012
Distant relatives whose existence I never suspected came to light: photographs
of my parents and brother, from 1930 -1942, provided rare emotional moments.
Genealogy wasn't my hobby, but on this occasion, I have to admit it is exciting.
I won't bring convoluted stories as to how this occurred but today I worked out there
must have been a chain of at least 8 persons from Kenya, England, Germany, the US
and Israel who were involved before the personal link appeared, out of the blue, on
my computer.
" The world is small!" Alon said. I said:
" I think it's not so much that the world is small, but that people are now able to
communicate over very long distances."
Including telephone and television; electronic postage;
camera; moving pictures; moving pictures with sound;
videos and tape recorders; and fax machines;
And BOOKS! The printing press! Newspapers!
Someone may want to make a chronological chart showing how the technologies
have evolved over the ages and spread over oceans and continents on our planet.
All that has fascinating implications with respect to verbal behavior.
Still, it is face-to-face short-distance dialogue which started all this. *
And these conversations continue today - begging for further functional analysis of
the types known as reflex and operant conditioning.
Just with unrestrained animals, free to go from place to place, deciding whether to
go on with a meal or move to another key for a drink.
Teaching techniques that Pavlov began and Skinner and others extended to children
at home, and in classrooms, need further expansion within and beyond a laboratory.
There is far too much fear and suffering - mutual hatred and violence - in the world.
Seeing when and where subjects move, permits researchers to study normalisation.
Governments and nations need information on general deceleration:
less coercion - no undue intimidation. And the same could be said for mobilisation:
we need more data on attractive stimulus control with correction and reinforcement.
More knowledge is needed to preserve flora and fauna within viable environments.
Negative vs positive objectives are basically matters of relative frequencies:
the number of rules and regulations that limit actions and force locomotion, compared
with spontaneous rest for leisure or pleasure and additional ways of appreciation. **
In other words, we need socialisation with Do's and Don'ts in healthier combinations:
voluntary and good-natured cooperation among individuals for common humane aims.
I trust readers weigh such matters and commence much-needed discourse:
the welfare of our offspring and of future generations hangs in the balance.
___________________________
* Edward R. Murrow
Just because the microphone in front of you amplifies your voice around the world, is no reason to
think we have any more wisdom than we had when our voices could reach only from one end of the
bar to the other.
** Then - with a sigh of relief - we might say with Will Rogers:
Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for.
13 March, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
