NOT QUITE AS I THOUGHT 

Yesterday, I spoke with someone about about Pavlov's work and activating salivary glands
but we didn't get to talk about adrenaline.

Instead, we discussed input & output in connection with the sense of smell and hearing.
He thought sound waves enter the ear. And that when smelling, molecules in the air also come in and out of the nose.

I should have replied, the air that enters - and thus activates cells - is not the same air that comes out; carbon dioxide exits and oxygen comes in.
Water, and nutrients too, enter the body and exit in different form.
Whereas sound waves don't go into the body or pass through the head.
Sounds vibrate the ear drums ( the 'tympanic membranes') and are emitted from the larynx or voice box in the form of 'echos' , imitation or reverberation; 'mands' or questions; and 'tacts', or statements.   ________________________________________________________________
Skinner bowled me over with the truth of the matter, speech, language, verbal behavior:
dialogue implicates at least two individuals, not necessarily members of one species.
________________________________________________________________

The above applies as well to light and sight:

2 people can observe things and events independently (on their own) and agree over what they saw.

And when face-to-face, persons can see and hear each other ... may look and listen to one another,
at the same time ... which is why we need further analysis and why it was necessary in the first place.

In summary:  an experimental analysis was necessary in circa 1900 when Pavlov measured
the psychic secretion, in healthy and conscious animals, one gland and one animal at a time.

And in 1938, when Skinner accumulated repetitive movements of visible body parts in whole and single - and fully aware - individual organisms who are perceivable with the naked eye; they are not a microscopic subject matter.

And in 1956, when his CASE HISTORY IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD was published ....
a history that caught my interest in circa 1970.

And to this day, those methods are called for and could be extended.

We need scientists to study the contingencies for teaching by modelling and learning to emulate
- or replicate - conduct that members of animal groups appear to exhibit with more mutual trust
and collective benefits than those displayed in some common human relationships. 

Conclusion: describing what humans do to help each other can inspire general comprehension.
  

Well, well!

 

Pavlov's experiments and implications therefrom...

Pavlov really did lay the foundation for an innovative, complementary, medicine;

psychosomatic psychiatry.  He showed it possible to activate a gland from afar.

On condition the animals are conscious and healthy and expect something good;

or know something tasty is coming and remember what happened at other times.

Otherwise, they'd never have looked at the place where meat powder is about to

appear, while licking their lips vigorously!
_______________________________

Maybe people will say, "We know that already; like adrenaline: fight and flight." .

"Right!" I shall reply:

"And hence, we don't need more science for fleeing or fighting.  We know how to

warn others of what will happen if they don't obey orders or don't stop hurting us, 

About warfare, we know more than enough."

What we need is co-operative science on how to keep wise and healthy in a changing

environment. Comimg around to the same point - time and again - can be wonderful!

As Winston Churchill recommended:
"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time, a tremendous whack."

Pavlov's data make a pivotal point: glands are affected from outside the head. The implications
of external control over brain function - during social relationships - call for global recognition.