The dogs’ perception is not like a clear-cut case of ‘input’ or ‘intake’:
Sound waves rebound from a vibrating eardrum, and the same goes for light rays, they refract from the retina in the eyeball. Light and sound surround us and enter only so far - yet complex response networks ripple over the brain, throughout the nervous system, to organ and muscles.
As for ‘output’: sound is generated in a voice box and emerges from there, into the air.
As for ‘output’: sound is generated in a voice box and emerges from there, into the air.
Physicists sent man into space and back, found properties of light and sound. Physiologists describe the chain of events, occasioned by audio-visual stimulation, in minute detail.
And everyone may agree: light is inaudible, sound is invisible and both are intangible.
No wonder if psychologists find it so hard to connect ‘mind’, and body, and ‘soul’. [25]
And since ‘taxis’ is not analyzed in the lab, it is also understandable if behaviorists have yet to explain individual mobility and why conditioned stimuli can serve as reminders which raise hopes, confidence, recognition, recollections, and suchlike.
Nor do scientists know if conditioning affects the locomotion of microorganisms.[26].
Nor do scientists know if conditioning affects the locomotion of microorganisms.[26].
Notwithstanding, when describing experiments in defense of radical behaviorism I find consensus; persons resonate to the suggestion: ‘conditioning’ is ‘psychosomatic.’
'A psychological reason’, does not necessarily insinuate faking, nor some fictional cause:
the term may refer to equality of socialization involving individuals and their physiology.
One thing is for sure, cumulative recording is an unprecedented research device:
subjects and scientists communicate; ‘give-and-take’ is printed out plainly, on paper.
subjects and scientists communicate; ‘give-and-take’ is printed out plainly, on paper.
I daresay philosophers ought to credit ‘dumb’ creatures with mental faculties.
Pavlov’s data - 2 graphs and all the tables - also reflect meaningful dialogue. [27]
And in day-to-day life we can certainly infer glands are affected from outside.
Just the sight or the sound of words, make people weep, activating their tear glands.[28]
In operant settings, nerves and muscles must be affected as well - otherwise, even Homo sapiens could not stand erect or raise his head: operant and respondent conditioning sustain physiology. [29]
Not to mention, allow and maintain the development of sane and normal and healthy individuals, who deplore victimization and are naturally able to move towards basic necessities for social survival.
Not to mention, allow and maintain the development of sane and normal and healthy individuals, who deplore victimization and are naturally able to move towards basic necessities for social survival.
[25] “Pavlov passionately combated idealism, which maintained that the immortal soul and the mortal soma (body) are disunited….” [11, p.40] Skinner too argued against “psycho-physical dualism”, suggesting ‘word substitution’ to resolve The Mind-Body Problem. “When in doubt, turn the noun into a verb”. A good idea, since verbs need subjects, people who talk and behave. Or: “Take any sentence in which ‘the mind’ is said to do something and see if the meaning is substantially changed if you substitute ’person’”. (New York Times, Sept.3rd, 1987) Thus: ‘not a soul to be seen‘ when no one’s around; and persons are known as The Life and the Soul of the Party. Also, folks know what soul-searching means. Dictionaries too are informative and especially Roget’s Thesaurus, a gift for mankind.
[26] Yet, see Amir Mitchell et al.: “Adaptive prediction of environmental changes by microorganisms ”
“In analogy to classical Pavlovian conditioning, microorganisms may have evolved to anticipate environmental stimuli by adapting to their temporal order of appearance.” Nature: published online, 17 June 2009
[27] Subjects react swiftly to changing contingencies. If for instance, instead of meat, dogs are served acid solution, they spit it out, shaking their head in a vigorous ‘no!’ and scattering drops of saliva all over the place.
[28] Though whether they weep for joy or for sorrow - or for sniffing an onion - the glands cannot tell. Sometimes we separate organ and organism verbally, for example, a person is ‘stunned’; the brain is ‘concussed’.
[29] Vindicating Skinner’s vision: “A quantitative science of behavior may be regarded as a sort of thermodynamics of the nervous system. It provides descriptions of the activity of the nervous system of the greatest possible generality. Neurology cannot prove these laws wrong if they are valid at the level of behavior.” Skinner cites E. Mach: “It often happens that the development of two different fields of science goes on side by side for long periods, without either of them exercising an influence on the other. On occasion, again, they may come into closer contact, when it is noticed that unexpected light is thrown on the doctrines of the one by the doctrines of the other. ---- Apart from the positive addition to knowledge, which is not to be despised, the temporary relation between them brings about a transformation of conceptions, clarifying them and permitting of their application over a wider field than that for which they were originally formed." (1914)
No comments:
Post a Comment