Determinism vs. Freewill

[TINNY]

Does that mean you have a free will choice to swim back or intentionally drown? Proabably not. Which ever you "picked" would be the one that best fits the sum total of your nature/ nurture regardless.

yes, if i know the sum total of yourlearning history and genes, i would be able to predict your action. But, you can choose your learning history - through inner speech. yikes! :D

 

In the end, it boils down to a question of metaphysics. so if there we have a metaphysical component transcendental of space, time and matter, then inner speech is undeniable. So it begs the question. Maybe that should be the next hot thread to be started.

[Freethinker]

there's not a single mention of the word Islam.

http://www.islamic-world.net/papers/persthry.htm

 

The only links on the page are to:

 

Read the other articles:

[Effective Islamic Parenting] [The Final Jihad] [solution To The World's Social/Environmental Problems: A New Perspective] [Proposal: Majma al-Bahrayn Institute for the Preservation of Traditional Islamic Scholarship]

It was written by Dr. John C. Jenkins, formerly professor of psychology at SUNY stonybrook and Princeton University. And you know what, BF skinner regarded him as hs protege.

1) I could not find a thing on that page that indicated who the author is.

 

2) I was refering to a quote from a 3rd party at the opening to the article and it's mention of mysticism.

 

3) "At any given point in time the individual is free to choose any of the infinite courses of action available. " (from the site) comletely violates the entire concept presented by Skinner in his benchmark "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" and his entire promotion of humans being nothing more than the combination of Nature/ Nurture.

When you are unable to give valid refutations, or there is simply no refutation, all you can do is resort to ad hominems. Think about it.

Nope. The site IS Islamic, just as I stated. The 3rd party quote misrepresents Skinner once it includes mysticism and

if authority is what you want, BF Skinner is in complete agreement wiht the tabula rasa concept.

Is just plain WRONG!

This quote from infidels.org best summarizes your inability to deal with the argument: Actually, there is no "blindly accepts the clean slate myth".

You fail to provide the URL and Google:

Your search - "blindly accepts the clean slate myth" site:infidels.org - did not match any documents.

and to add that, skinner was one of the most influential tabula rasa behaviorists..

Absurd statement which you would know if you understood Skinner. Skinner stated that we are the exclusive culmination of nature and nurture. NO "blank slate" (tabula rasa). We are born with specific hardwiring which is MODIFIED by life's experience. And everything we do, every decision we make is not only limited by this, the "decision" we make is nothing more than the logical result of every modification nurture has done to nature.

This is what i got from the internet at this address: http://maxpages.com/thena/Piaget_and_Skinner

Which addresses none of what you post above. It discusses

 

IV. PARALLELISM BETWEEN PIAGET AND SKINNER

 

And only uses Skinner's name to include "behaviorist" in the discussion. Neither he nor his specific theories are addressed in the page.

Of course, genetic factors play a role. But imagine all the big muscular and athletic people in the whole world go through the same shaping process as Andre Agassi, the US tennis great, then i'm sure there are many more, perhaps thousands who can play tennis better than agassi because they have better physique and Agassi's rather small.

Boy do you fall on your face with this one!

 

1) comparing "Andre Agassi" who you state is "rather small" to "big muscular" and then claiming they "go through the same shaping process". Absurd.

 

2) you are claiming that the determining factor in ability to play tennis is based on being "big muscular ... have better physique". Yet you acknowledge that the benchmark is set by someone that is "rather small".

You see, genetic factors are almost inconsequential in determining who the person becomes.

This is a rediculous statement. You could not have thought it through before posting it.

We can't prove mathematically with observable scientific and accurate measurements of the behavior of someone such as the amount of anger etc.

American Psychiatric Association

Brain Activity Offers Clues To Origin of Anger... A new study explores the brain activity of such individuals when they get angry.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/19/22-a

 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Anger and Frontal Brain Activity: EEG Asymmetry Consistent With Approach Motivation Despite Negative Affective Valence

http://psych.wisc.edu/harmonjones/hj_allen98.pdf

 

Biological Psychiatry Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

Regional brain activity during transient self-induced anxiety and anger in healthy adults.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10459394&dopt=Abstract

Human behavior are way too complex to be subject to analysis with current equipment. So we start with assumptions.

Or so YOU assume?

 

Tinny, Tinnny, Tinny!

[Freethinker]

... of course. i am proposing something else as an example that when combined, manifest a whole set of new possibilities which is nothing close to resembling the basic units (atoms) that make it up.

 

yes, VERY deterministic. that's the idea. at the low level, everything is deterministic.

 

ooops! i meant subatomic particles. :D

did I say it did?

 

my mistake. i'm talking about replicator molecules.

tinny, you keep jumping back and forth between and mixing up SUBatomic, atomic, molecular, particle, .... Your claims are based on your confusion and blurring of these very different levels and conditions.

 

e.g.(s) "basic units (atoms) that make it up" when atoms are NOT basic units. "at the low level, everything is deterministic" at mocelular levels yes things are deterministic. But at "low level" (particle) they are NOT.

[TINNY]

http://www.islamic-world.net/papers/persthry.htm

 

The only links on the page are to:

 

Read the other articles:

[Effective Islamic Parenting] [The Final Jihad] [solution To The World's Social/Environmental Problems: A New Perspective] [Proposal: Majma al-Bahrayn Institute for the Preservation of Traditional Islamic Scholarship]

I am referring to the theory. If you cannot provide valid refutation of the theory, and instead resort to saying the theory is invalid because it is on an islamic website, then it's a fallacy.

 

2) I was refering to a quote from a 3rd party at the opening to the article and it's mention of mysticism.

the quote is actually opposing mysticism.here it is again:

Skinner warned us against the diversionary effects of

fascination with inner life. I agree that the possibility is omnipresent.

Mentalistic ideas are so seductive that one is in danger of being led down

the garden path of introspection and mysticism forever. For that reason perhaps only a tough-minded behaviourist can afford to entertain the seductress.

--Alan Paivio

 

Skinner is a tabula rasa psychologist. Here it's mentioned on http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/models_of_learners.htm

Skinner claimed that children come into the world with a tabula rasa -a blank slate-bearing no pre-conceived notions about the world or about language, and these children are then shaped by their environment, slowly conditioned through various schedules of reinforcement.

See? what did i say?

You fail to provide the URL and Google:

Your search - "blindly accepts the clean slate myth" site:infidels.org - did not match any documents.

You go back and check my post. You completely missed it!

 

And everything we do, every decision we make is not only limited by this, the "decision" we make is nothing more than the logical result of every modification nurture has done to nature.

what do you mean that nature can modify nature? I would say nature provides the set of limitations and nurture serves to maximize and fulfill the true potential. as this quote from http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Seeking%20Common%20Ground.htm shows:

Both theorists were convinced that intellectual development, although built upon and limited by genetic propensity, is to a large degree the result of learning from experience. In fact, both considered their work to have resolved the old nature/nurture controversy in general. According to Piaget, his theory did this by presenting "a dialectical solution halfway between empiricism and innatism (Piatelli-Palmarini, 1980:351)." It explains how the adaptation of self-regulating structures, at progressively higher states of equilibrium, coordinates the interaction of maturational and environmental effects. For any particular pattern of action, there is no way to measure the relative impact of these effects.

1) comparing "Andre Agassi" who you state is "rather small" to "big muscular" and then claiming they "go through the same shaping process". Absurd.

 

2) you are claiming that the determining factor in ability to play tennis is based on being "big muscular ... have better physique". Yet you acknowledge that the benchmark is set by someone that is "rather small".

 

This is a rediculous statement. You could not have thought it through before posting it.

Stop your straw man. Better go back and read carefully. What i mean is that andre agassi, although small (maybe we should use Michael Chang as a better example) and not well-built, is one of the greatest tennis players. But suppose all the strongest and most athletic men in the world went through the same shaping process as Agassi, agassi would be in no man's land. But because agassi is one of the best, it shows that NATURE is rather insignificant compared to NURTURE. get what i mean?

 

American Psychiatric Association

Brain Activity Offers Clues To Origin of Anger... A new study explores the brain activity of such individuals when they get angry.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/19/22-a

 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Anger and Frontal Brain Activity: EEG Asymmetry Consistent With Approach Motivation Despite Negative Affective Valence

http://psych.wisc.edu/harmonjones/hj_allen98.pdf

 

Biological Psychiatry Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

Regional brain activity during transient self-induced anxiety and anger in healthy adults.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10459394&dopt=Abstract

does not address what i said in the following:

We can't prove mathematically with observable scientific and accurate measurements of the behavior of someone such as the amount of anger etc. Human behavior are way too complex to be subject to analysis with current equipment. So we start with assumptions. And when that assumption is generally accurate, it is the best on offer

what i mean is that it is difficult to analyze what causes someone to behave in a certain way. Most are pure speculation. the links you provided only shows what happens when someone gets mad.

 

Tinny, Tinnny, Tinny!

don't laugh at me yet. I'm trying my best. Geko rested his case. Irish has scared off. PG is nowhere in sight. So, again, David meets Goliath. I'll tank you once I get another 36 years of study! :D

 

 

 

:D :D

[Freethinker]

it is. if we're perfect, we would manifest complete free-will. no external influences would affect our behavior. as it is, our behavior is partly, ormostly perhaps, determined by previous experience.

Perfection does not require Free Will. You are wrong. In fact I would posite that if we had free will and were perfect, part of our decision making process would include ALL "external influences" that might be even remotely involved. Without perfect/ complete input source evaulation, how could we make a perfect decision?

no, it is to say that our actions have two basic influences. external and internal. that is why we have no pure will. but we are still free to choose.

You agree that our decisions are under control (to one extent or other) by external sources. Agreed. However you still ahve not shown ANY proof of Free Will. You just include it at the end as if doing so makes it correct.

 

Sorry, PROOF makes it correct, not just including it in the post.

yes. technically, it is the freedom to choose our response to a stimulus.

You still have not included the first PROOF that we DO HAVE "the freedom to choose".

but another influence also goes in. the inner speech.

PROVE "inner speech". Or for that matter at least give a VALID defintion of what it is.

we can choose to strengthen the external influence or we can opt to override them.

PROVE that we can, PROOF PROOF PROOF! Tinny! You still seem to think that merely repeating something enough is all that is needed. PROOF tinny PROOF!

we have a metaphyscal (read penrose's) too.

PROOF PROOF PROOF! Tinny! You still seem to think that merely repeating something enough is all that is needed. PROOF tinny PROOF!

[Freethinker]

nobody's responding. have we reached a consensus?

Us? NEVER! :-)

[Freethinker]

you can choose your learning history - through inner speech. yikes! :D

PROOF Tinny PROOF. All you do is keep repeating this "inner speech" stuff as if just using the phrase is of value. All it is is empty filler. Meaningless. Unless you can define it and PROVE it exists.

In the end, it boils down to a question of metaphysics. so if there we have a metaphysical component transcendental of space, time and matter, then inner speech is undeniable. So it begs the question. Maybe that should be the next hot thread to be started.

What topic? The existence of a metaphysical world?

 

Start HERE Tinny. Show us PROOF. Stop PRETENDING it exists just because you wish it to be so. Stop expecting us to accept explanations based on things you never have PROOF for. Stick with FACTS and REASON.

 

All the rest is mindless yada yada.

[TINNY]

tinny, you keep jumping back and forth between and mixing up SUBatomic, atomic, molecular, particle, .... Your claims are based on your confusion and blurring of these very different levels and conditions.

 

e.g.(s) "basic units (atoms) that make it up" when atoms are NOT basic units. "at the low level, everything is deterministic" at mocelular levels yes things are deterministic. But at "low level" (particle) they are NOT.

You are the one confused. Never mind. I'll explain the idea in more detail when a suitable thread comes along.

[geko]

Firstly i just want to say in case someone gets the wrong idea about me that I'm aware of nature/nuture, i except we're not born blank slate, i dont believe there's a ghost inside the shell. I say this because some intricacies in previous posts in of mine in this thread may have pointed to the opposite - my beliefs obviously arent consistent if that's the case.

 

Anyway.

 

Which ever you "picked" would be the one that best fits the sum total of your nature/ nurture regardless.

 

So, whichever one you picked would be because you think it will add to your own happiness? Just wondering

 

And, because of nature/nuture we are the way we are. Choices come from the pre-dispositions, yes?

 

So, "the differences between "our own" choices and ones influenced by others", is what? (considering that the pre-dispositions is what it is to be human).

[TINNY]

i dont believe there's a ghost inside the shell. I say this because some intricacies in previous posts in of mine in this thread may have pointed to the opposite - my beliefs obviously arent consistent if that's the case.

believe is not a good word to use with FT in the game.

 

So, whichever one you picked would be because you think it will add to your own happiness? Just wondering

not necessarily, geko. there are two factors: reward and punishment. whatever you "picked" is either to get reward or avoid punishment. happiness would be categorized under reward.

 

So, "the differences between "our own" choices and ones influenced by others", is what? (considering that the pre-dispositions is what it is to be human).

 

geko, you really do resemble Immanuelle Kant. maybe its just me. whenever i read your posts, i feel like it's Kant. The obscurity and profoundness of it. Close to being mystical, but actually deeply logical.

[Freethinker]

I am referring to the theory. If you cannot provide valid refutation of the theory, and instead resort to saying the theory is invalid because it is on an islamic website, then it's a fallacy.

 

Tinny, Tinny Tinny. Read what is actually posted. You are confusing discussions about your personal allegiance with the specific claims. I suggested that you need to stop pretending that these Islamic sites are science sites. And this IS an Islamic site! islamic-world.net

 

As too the theory, I did refute it. Read again. Additionally I pointed out how it contradicts one of the sources it claims to follow, Skinner.

the quote is actually opposing mysticism.here it is again:

OK, it mentions Skinner as having warned us. And that was against being diverted by the "fascination with inner life". Which right there shows rejection of the "inner speech" part of the rest of it. Then the author (of the quote, not the theory posted on the site) agrees with the possibility of it (being diverted by inner (whatever)). Then the author (of the quote) adds their own opinion. (No longer directly Skinner's concepts) And it discusses "mentalistic" (of or relating to any school of psychology or psychiatry that in contrast to behaviorism values subjective data (as those gained by introspection) in the study and explanation of behavior) seduction. We at this point are WAY past ANY agreement with Skinnerian behavioral concepts. The very usage of "mentalistic" is as the defintion shows, "in contrast to" Skinnerian behavioral concepts.

 

And all of this as a lead in to a discussion of how some "inner speech", which is competely contrary to Skinnerian behavioral concepts, is supported by Skinner?

 

No, the use of Skinner as a supporting ideolog to this inner speech is completely off base.

Skinner is a tabula rasa psychologist. Here it's mentioned on http://venus.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/models_of_learners.htm

See? what did i say?

Here we go. Your first URL fails completely. So rather than admit the error, you throw out another one for me to chase around after and can't be honest enough to admit the first one did in fact fail.

 

However this site does directly suggest that Skinner was pro "tabula rasa". My study of Skinner tells me otherwise. As do established sources. (The source you included was not an authority on eaitehr Skinner or behavioral science)

 

The online encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com shows Skinner as aligned with Rousseau and Rousseau differed from Locke's "tabula rasa".

 

But I can see where compared to perhaps a Descartes, Skinner would be considered a tabula rasa'er. But Skinner is far from having supported humans being born with a blank slate.

You go back and check my post. You completely missed it!

This I believe was RE your claim of infidels.org supporting your Skinnerian claims. NO you DID NOT include a link

what do you mean that nature can modify nature?

NURTURE modifies Nature. I even checked my post. I typed it correctly. YOU missed it.

I would say nature provides the set of limitations and nurture serves to maximize and fulfill the true potential.

ERG! THAT IS WHAT I SAID! NURTURE modifies Nature. Nature, thru genetic herdity/ hardwiring sets up the intial state of the mind and nurture makes changes along the way.

 

And you get even funnier as we go!

as this quote from http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Seeking%20Common%20Ground.htm shows:

 

What is the most hilarious in this is what this site says in a lttle way!

 

"Jean Piaget and B.F. Skinner made remarkable -- and quite separate -- breakthroughs here but, because of the difficulty in translating their findings into terminology understandable by both, neither was able to benefit from the other's contributions. Piaget was opposed to behaviorism, yet his writings reveal little real familiarity with the concepts underlying that model as it was developed by B.F. Skinner. He usually equated it to the older "blank-slate" sensationalism of John Locke,"

 

Perhaps you think Skinner was tabula rasa because of familiarity with Piaget and his error in understanding of Skinner's behaviorism.

Stop your straw man. Better go back and read carefully. What i mean is that andre agassi, although small and not well-built, is one of the greatest tennis players. But suppose all the strongest and most athletic men in the world went through the same shaping process as Agassi, agassi would be in no man's land. But because agassi is one of the best, it shows that NATURE is rather insignificant compared to NURTURE. get what i mean?

1) it would be impossible for two physically very different people to go "through the same shaping process"

 

2) it is a fallacy to state a priori that "the strongest and most athletic men in the world" have potential advantages in a particular sport over others less strong. Not all sports are based strictly on brute force. In fact in tennis a larger more bulky muscular body would have a disadvatage over a more agile, quicker one.

 

3) Nature would play a major roll in determining the genetic design of a body that would be best at something like tennis, or any sport. In fact if the intial genetics were not correct, nothing could help. One could IMPROVE, but to be world class takes major genetic predispostion.

does not address what i said in the following: what i mean is that it is difficult to analyze what causes someone to behave in a certain way. Most are pure speculation. the links you provided only shows what happens when someone gets mad.

No what you SAID was that we can not measure anger in humans. I PROVED that to be wrong and provided valid verifyable resouces to support my assertions. I realize this is not the common process around here. But it is the one I use.

don't laugh at me yet. I'm trying my best. Geko rested his case. Irish has scared off. PG is nowhere in sight. So, again, David meets Goliath. I'll tank you once I get another 36 years of study! :D

Since you are admitting that my advanced years give me an edge, why not try learning from it rather than arguing with it?

[Freethinker]

Firstly i just want to say in case someone gets the wrong idea about me that I'm aware of nature/nuture, i except we're not born blank slate, i dont believe there's a ghost inside the shell. I say this because some intricacies in previous posts in of mine in this thread may have pointed to the opposite - my beliefs obviously arent consistent if that's the case.

And consistancy is very important. Thanks for the clarifications.

So, whichever one you picked would be because you think it will add to your own happiness? Just wondering

No I do not give that great of a level of conscious ability. What I meant was which ever one you pisk was the only one you would have picked. If you walk to the end of a hallway and either have to turn left or right, if you turn right, that is because the combination of how you were at birrth (nature) and everything you have experienced to this point (nurture) had an electrochemical result that made you turn right. YOU had no actual choice even though there were two options available.

 

It was not because you DECIDED to add to your happiness. our "choice" was determined by the culmination of nature and nurture to that point. THAT is Skinner!

And, because of nature/nuture we are the way we are. Choices come from the pre-dispositions, yes?

I a strict sense yes. But "predisposed" seems not quite strong enough for some reason. PreDETERMINED perhaps?

So, "the differences between "our own" choices and ones influenced by others", is what? (considering that the pre-dispositions is what it is to be human).

I see no difference. ALL "Choices" are a culmination of EVERYTHING and the actual "choice" is the results of the electrochemical processes of the brain which has been configured to it's current state by nature/ nurture.

[TINNY]

Tinny, Tinny Tinny. Read what is actually posted. You are confusing discussions about your personal allegiance with the specific claims. I suggested that you need to stop pretending that these Islamic sites are science sites. And this IS an Islamic site! islamic-world.net

i am not pretending anything.

 

And all of this as a lead in to a discussion of how some "inner speech", which is competely contrary to Skinnerian behavioral concepts, is supported by Skinner?

so explain what skinnerian behavioral concepts is please. i thought it was called operant conditioning and all that really is is the modification of behavior (the actions of animals) brought about by the consequences that follow upon the occurrence of the behavior. The only difference with skinner's model is the inner speech. but the concept of operant conditioning is just the same.

 

However this site does directly suggest that Skinner was pro "tabula rasa". My study of Skinner tells me otherwise. As do established sources. (The source you included was not an authority on eaitehr Skinner or behavioral science)

what makes you say that?

 

But I can see where compared to perhaps a Descartes, Skinner would be considered a tabula rasa'er. But Skinner is far from having supported humans being born with a blank slate.

yes. skinnerrian psychology is empirical

This I believe was RE your claim of infidels.org supporting your Skinnerian claims. NO you DID NOT include a link

damn it. why do you make such a fuss. would you just please go back to my post? i did not supply any link whatsoever. I just copied a quote and pasted it in quotes. and you missed it! it was more of a joke thing than a factual thing. dont have to fight over it.

 

NURTURE modifies Nature. I even checked my post. I typed it correctly. YOU missed it.

whoops! i mistyped. i meant to ask how nurture can modify nature. coz this just means that nature would be almost useless as nurture simply modifies everything aboout nature.

 

ERG! THAT IS WHAT I SAID! NURTURE modifies Nature. Nature, thru genetic herdity/ hardwiring sets up the intial state of the mind and nurture makes changes along the way.

no. you said that nature partly determines behavior. but actually nature provides a tabula rasa to be nurtured.

 

And you get even funnier as we go!

you always seem to not understand me. donno whether intentional or not.

 

1) it would be impossible for two physically very different people to go "through the same shaping process"

well different shaping processes, but meaning that all were conditioned to play tennis well and to like it and all possible characteristics to be a good tennis player was shaped.

 

2) it is a fallacy to state a priori that "the strongest and most athletic men in the world" have potential advantages in a particular sport over others less strong. Not all sports are based strictly on brute force. In fact in tennis a larger more bulky muscular body would have a disadvatage over a more agile, quicker one.

dont be so picky. I meant whatever physique that would best suit a tennis player.

 

3) Nature would play a major roll in determining the genetic design of a body that would be best at something like tennis, or any sport. In fact if the intial genetics were not correct, nothing could help. One could IMPROVE, but to be world class takes major genetic predispostion.

consider all the people who have a suitable physical attribute to play tennis at the top level. probably would total in the millions. but only a play tennis seriously. NOw you see? the number who play professional tennis in relation to the number who have the genes but don't reach a high level.

 

No what you SAID was that we can not measure anger in humans. I PROVED that to be wrong and provided valid verifyable resouces to support my assertions. I realize this is not the common process around here. But it is the one I use.

no. to measure anger means to know how much incontrollable his actions would be ( or something like that). not what happens when he is angry.

 

Since you are admitting that my advanced years give me an edge, why not try learning from it rather than arguing with it?

why would i want to just agree with you on everything? what i meant was that i am less capable of presenting my thoughts even if i might be correct. becoz i am less well-read and not have as much experience etc...

[TINNY]

so the implications of skinnerian learning theory is that there is no such thing as human intelligence. such things as being able to do this or that... we are not able to do anything; just merely part of the system of existence.

[Freethinker]

First a comment about the new Forums. The one thing I don;t like about them is that they do not carry the earlier quote along. Tinny's reply means nothing without the context Tinny was responding to.

i am not pretending anything.

See? Anyway. (Sorry Tormod, the rest is great!)

Tinny, Tinny Tinny.... I suggested that you need to stop pretending that these Islamic sites are science sites. And this IS an Islamic site! islamic-world.net

This brings up a question. Why do you think it is Tinny, that so many Islam based sites seem so anxious to promote some forms of scientific, or psedo-scientific aspects as this? That hyranrunafasjdnbajsbdj(?) and this site for example. The approach often seems to be designed to want to say "See, we believe in science too! Allah be praised!". But only on a cursory level.

[TINNY]

that site is mainly a parenting site intended to convey to muslims how to raise children. so part of it is to explain how learning takes place according to the qur'an, objectively defined by scientific terminology.

 

but harun yahya site is different. He is no scientist neither is he a philosopher. Just a prolific writer. Even his researchers aren't scientists. Therefore, his science his rather naive. Many Muslim scholars have wrote to him to point out his errors. And the people at his institue were quite adamant at first. But eventually (hopefully) he will change. He is way too influenced by christian theology. try and watch some of his documentaries and you'll see why.

[Freethinker]

so explain what skinnerian behavioral concepts is please. i thought it was called operant conditioning and all that really is is the modification of behavior (the actions of animals) brought about by the consequences that follow upon the occurrence of the behavior. The only difference with skinner's model is the inner speech. but the concept of operant conditioning is just the same.

Interestingly, one of the links you provided gives a good answer to this:

But a cursory reading of Skinner would have revealed that radical behaviorism does not draw any line between "inner" and "outer" where reinforcement is concerned.

http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Seeking%20Common%20Ground.htm

Also interesting is your inclusion of "(the actions of animals)". As Skinner would never suggest that humans are anything BUT just another species of animal.

 

To say, however, that "The only difference with skinner's model is the inner speech" is to miss the entire point that Skinner would completely reject that there is even the possibility of this "inner speech". It is completely antithetical to Skinnerian Behaviorism.

 

That is why I so strongly objected to the quote as a lead in to the assertions. It seemed nothing more than an attempt to provide credibility for the claims by being able to mention Skinner's name at the outset.

 

Skinner's model would be that we are born with an operational behavioral condition, NOT a "blank slate". We function from day one in certain hardwired behavioral manner. This behavior is modified by each and every experience. e.g. he promoted that infants are not inherently born to "soil" themselves. Or as the blank slate concept would require, no particular action path regarding it. He specifically suggested and later demostrated with his own children, that we "soil" ourselves as newborns because it provides a positive experience. We feel a warmth we enjoy and this expereince develops a conditioned response to the physical need to "eliminate" that promotes "soiling" ourselves. But if the conditions are set up where the "elimination" is NOT a pleasant experience, if the child is in a controlled environment where the relative temp of the elimination is lower than the environment, it is not a pleasant experience. Naturally a child raised in the 2nd conditions would not soil themselves and would not need later conditioning to replace the undesirable one of soiling ourselves.

 

Thus the Skinner model would reject the blank slate idea that either/ neither is preferable at birth. In fact he specifically addressed and proved that when the appropriate conditions exist, we prefer to not soil ourselves which correlates to the obvious later desire to not do so, which obviously was hard wired into our genetic code.