The Zombie Poll

[hammegk]

As profound as Behavorism's mis-representation of reality?

Or, admit free-will cannot exist under your worldview, and choose to believe you and your computer have the same constraints on behaviors.

 

[Mercutio]

Why, then, do you answer with

when in response to your observation that

I pointed out "The Behaviorist actually engaged in stimulus/response conditioning is robbed of no such thing, of course."

Is it a reinforcement/punishment thing?

My apologies; I thought you understood Behaviorism better than you actually do.

Admitting determinism finally?

Admitting determinism finally?

I am quite confused--of course behaviorism is deterministic. But the molar level of analysis of radical behaviorism is analogous to natural selection; natural selection works via differential reproductive success, regardless of the source of variation. Reinforcement and punishment influence the rates of behavior, regardless of the specific (and often impossible to determine, especially after the fact) eliciting stimulus. If you have trouble seeing the determinism in radical behaviorism, do you also have problems understanding the Theory of Evolution?

You've jumped through a number of hoops here. In response to my comment:

Still can't tell whether you answered yes or no.

Again, my apologies for assuming you had a greater understanding than you do. As I said, your use of "stimulus response" indicates a vocabulary used in a molecular view (not literally molecules, just as opposed to a molar view) of behavior, whereas radical behaviorism is a molar approach. So the question is ill-phrased, and either a yes or a no would be misleading. Thus, the explanation.

Freedom is a fiction?

You are sped, Mercutio!

If you are truly interested in educating yourself on this, read Skinner's (1971) Beyond Freedom And Dignity. If your goal is simply to find reasons to dismiss, please let us know and we can save time.

Remind me not to go on a long trip with you.

Afraid of learning?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As profound as Behavorism's mis-representation of reality?

O.K., everyone pay up, I won the pool. Hammegk in one post.

Or, admit free-will cannot exist under your worldview, and choose to believe you and your computer have the same constraints on behaviors.

 

[President Bush]

My apologies; I thought you understood Behaviorism better than you actually do.
I am quite confused--of course behaviorism is deterministic. But the molar level of analysis of radical behaviorism is analogous to natural selection; natural selection works via differential reproductive success, regardless of the source of variation. Reinforcement and punishment influence the rates of behavior, regardless of the specific (and often impossible to determine, especially after the fact) eliciting stimulus. If you have trouble seeing the determinism in radical behaviorism, do you also have problems understanding the Theory of Evolution?
Again, my apologies for assuming you had a greater understanding than you do. As I said, your use of "stimulus response" indicates a vocabulary used in a molecular view (not literally molecules, just as opposed to a molar view) of behavior, whereas radical behaviorism is a molar approach. So the question is ill-phrased, and either a yes or a no would be misleading. Thus, the explanation.

Mercutio, it seems like you are most likely a swell guy and I'm not interested in trying to format and reconstruct how we have, apparently, talked past one another concerning these points. That sort of thing is just a drag to read for everyone.

If you are truly interested in educating yourself on this, read Skinner's (1971) Beyond Freedom And Dignity. If your goal is simply to find reasons to dismiss, please let us know and we can save time.

I read the book and remember liking it in 1974 when I was a senior in high school.

Afraid of learning?

I prefer Hamlet to Skinner. Please leave in the Prince of Denmark

 

[Mercutio]

I prefer Hamlet to Skinner. Please leave in the Prince of Denmark

I show Hamlet (or a few scenes of it) to my classes, when we talk about the influence of Freud. Actually, I show four different versions of Hamlet, just the scenes immediately after the players have done their bit, when Hamlet fails to kill his uncle, then goes up and confronts his mum and accidentally skewers Polonius.

First, Nicol Williamson's Hamlet, a traditional and very well done play (with a young Anthony Hopkins as Claudius!). Then, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet, notable not just for Olivier, but for its embrace of Freudian interpretation. Hamlet's hesitancy to kill Claudius is ambiguous because of his Oedipal identification with him; Williamson's Hamlet is more concerned that he would be sending Claudius to heaven. Olivier's Hamlet is passionately attracted to his own mother (his heart pounding in his ears as he gazes on her heaving bosom), whereas Williamson's Hamlet treats her as...well, as his mother.

Then, to see whether they understand, we see Kevin Kline's hideously wooden Hamlet, which proves that a non-Freudian Hamlet can certainly be made boring. (I have not yet included Branagh's Hamlet, but it also counts as non-Freudian.) Lastly, we see Mad Max's Mel Gibson's Hamlet, which elicits "eewwww"'s from my students, it is so Freudian. Hamlet driving home a point to his mum with pelvic thrusts, in bed? It only makes sense if one buys Freud, hook, line, and sinker. If you have doubts about Freud, then it is just creepy.

Anyway, long way to go to say the following: Behaviorism is not Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Behaviorism is Hamlet without Freud. Freud was not there when Shakespeare wrote it, and Freud only "improves" Hamlet for those who can unhinge their jaws wide enough to swallow all sorts of pseudoscience masquerading as a theory of human nature. As a reason for staging it one way or another, Freud makes for an interesting artistic choice, as long as we are able to suspend our disbelief. But it is not a necessary part of the play. Not at all.

 

[President Bush]

Anyway, long way to go to say the following: Behaviorism is not Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

I agree.

Isn't the Prince of Denmark one of the most introspective characters ever written? With around 1400 lines Hamlet just wouldn't be the same without him.

Behaviorism is Hamlet without Freud.

To sleep: perchance to dream, our most favourable object of study...

 

[Mercutio]

To sleep: perchance to dream, our most favourable object of study...

It's all Queen Mab...

 

[President Bush]

It's all Queen Mab...

One of the most noteworthy aspects of Queen Mab’s ride is that the dreams she brings generally do not bring out the best sides of the dreamers, but instead serve to confirm them in whatever vices they are addicted to—for example, greed, violence, or lust. Another important aspect of Mercutio’s description of Queen Mab is that it is complete nonsense, albeit vivid and highly colorful. Nobody believes in a fairy pulled about by “a small grey-coated gnat” whipped with a cricket’s bone. Finally, it is worth noting that the description of Mab and her carriage goes to extravagant lengths to emphasize how tiny and insubstantial she and her accoutrements are. Queen Mab and her carriage do not merely symbolize the dreams of sleepers, they also symbolize the power of waking fantasies, daydreams, and desires. Through the Queen Mab imagery, Mercutio suggests that all desires and fantasies are as nonsensical and fragile as Mab, and that they are basically corrupting. This point of view contrasts starkly with that of Romeo and Juliet, who see their love as real and ennobling.

http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/romeojuliet/terms/theme_9.html

President Bush now wonders if you are not really Mercutio.

 

[Mercutio]

Sparknotes?

Sparknotes?

'Tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve...

 

[President Bush]

'Tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve...

The hurt cannot be much.

 

[Dancing David]

As profound as Behavorism's mis-representation of reality?

Or, admit free-will cannot exist under your worldview, and choose to believe you and your computer have the same constraints on behaviors.

Belief and reality are often seen drinking in the bar but they rarely go home together. Free will can exist under behaviorism or it might not, you seem prejudiced against computers, are you a siliconphobe?

 

[President Bush]

Reason: it is free will not gree will

I had a friend named Will who died. He is now referred to as Won't.

 

[uruk]

I don't know if anybody brought this up, but a simiilar question was lightly delt with in a Japanese manga called "Gunnm" or "Battle Angle Alita". The entier inhabitants of a city had thier brains replaced with a chip without thier knowledge. It was swapped during a rite of passage when the person turned 18 or 20. The authors conclusion was thiat it really didn't matter untill the person found out about the chip.

 

[hammegk]

bump

 

[Z]

I'll have to hold off from voting. On the one hand, I see no particular reason why it wouldn't be a 'smooth as silk' transition. On the other, it bothers me for some reason that, of all the body parts that are replaced, the brain cells remain largely the same for the life of the person.

Somehow I think it would be a not-entirely smooth transition - that there would be tiny amounts of disorientation and disjointedness that might disappear as the brain learns to integrate the artificial portions; and that a mass replacement - say, the entire left frontal lobe - might be catastrophic to the 'self', like massive brain damage. Eventually, again, the 'self' might recover - or it might simply repair, creating a new 'self' with memories of being someone else.

I'm more interested at this point in what the results of an organic brain transfusion might be - if your left hemisphere were damaged, for example, and portions replaced by a donor... would you be you, would you be him, would you be a new being altogether...