Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Why I am not a cognitive psychologist
I am a Behavior Analyst (i.e. Behavioral Psychologist), behavior analysis is also referred to as learning theory, as such mentalist descriptions and similar concepts are discounted mainly due to lack of evidence for such items. Given this, and the seeming lack of understanding of the behaviorist's stance, I have included a link to what I believe is one of the best overviews of our objections to a cognitive/mentalist approach to psychology. Besides physiological psychology, Behavior Analysis is the most solid school in psychology, with research as solid as studies as solid as anything found in any of the "hard" sciences.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
This thread was not intended as an insult to you I mainly created it due to what I believe is a general lack of understanding as to the general objections behavior analysis has to the mentalist and cognitive explanations for behavior. The need for such a response should be taken as a compliment, the mentalist and/or cognitive school of thought obviously has a much stronger presence among the non-psychological community. All the same, perhaps I did not phrase my initial post in a proper and more considerate manner with respect for the cognitive/mentalist schools of thought.
Cognitive is good........but honestly, if you see yourself as what you really are...ie god, then you shouldn't have any problems..........all is ok......this life is just an illusion, and vacation, a stop off from the real reality.
I know. I would've included a smilie to make that more clear, but at the time I posted, the computer I was using wouldn't allow me that luxury. I like to think that you and I have spoken/debated enough where we can post our views, knowing no insults are intended.
...ah...there we go.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I donīt know. I donīt think that all our individuality resumes to just how we behave. I mean, if you create a machine that behaves like a human being it does not mean you have a human being there. Like in that philosophical zombie argument. But its cool to discuss this.
I think that we canīt define our individuality with only basis in behavior. Individuality has to do with conscious experience and for me there is no way judge someones conscious experience only by the way someone behaves.
But I think if our purpose is only to describe behavior then perhaps there is no problem with behaviorism, but I think it is wrong to try to take any conclusion about the nature of our individuality using behaviorism.
Now, if we are talking about the nature of individuality. I think it makes sense to raise conscious experience as an plausible argument. I am having conscious experience now, from where does it come from. It canīt simply be ignored in my opinion.
__________________
Last edited by Atlantis001 on Dec 2nd, 2006 at 03:31 AM
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Such is only plausible given the general belief of mentalist descriptions, behaviorists believe that the mentalist descriptions are in error. I, myself, believe that all individuals have extremely different internal or covert experiences, and that assuming similarities is very premature, if ever possible.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I don't really care, this thread is not directed at you in any way. There is a general lack of understanding concerning behavior analysis in the population at large. Despite this, your comments require a response, imo.
Also, I do not believe science conflicts in any manner with religious belief.
Mormons believe the soul is all there is, it is the body and spirit combination that is a living being. The body does nothing that the spirit is not a part. There is no aspect of the two that can in any manner be distinguished from the other while one is living. The idea that the spirit in some way is separate from the body is laughable from such a stance, when a person exhibits any behavior, one is seeing the soul behave, living is a state that a Mormon refers to as being a soul. This in no way infers some "mind" or any other interal reference, as a typical reference to soul or spirit infers. The body and spirit are what one sees when one looks at another, there is no supernatural "aura" or other non physical material, a living being is the body and spirit. Spirit will never be discovered and thought of as "spirit ", spirit is the energy, the spark, that causes life, or rather the functioning of cells that keeps the body living. There is absolutely no conflict between Mormon doctrine and a behavioral perspective, there is conflict between the typical Christian view, that you cannot get past, and a behavioral perspective. A behavioral perspective is, imo, more in line with Mormon theology than the cognitive. The idea of a dualistic nature, as implied by a mentalist perspective and/or belief in a "mind", reduces accountability of the individual for his actions. Statements such as, "I could not control myself", in other words "My body did it, my spirit didn't want to", gain credibility in a dualistic paradigm. Behavior Analysis denies the probability of a dualistic nature, it lays responsibility for our behavior at our feet as we respond differentially to varying events and stimuli in the environment, at least initially, once a response gains a strong history of reinforcement, the environment gains control over the individual. Given this, patterns of response become predictable.
The possibility of an afterlife is absolutely irrelevant to a study of behavior, and so I will not address it here.
If you would like to discuss religious matters with me, go ahead, but the proper place for such discussion is in the religion forum, personally I believe your post to be a flame.
But what do you think about your own conscious experience ? It is something that you can see and judge. Perhaps you canīt see or even measure other people internal mental experiences, but you know about your own experiences and internal mental states, right ? Your own conscious experience is not covert from you. It is just covert to other people.
I mean, we can choose to ignore conscious experience while attemping to describe behavior but we canīt say that it do not exist(i.e. say the mind do not exist).
But what I think, is that there is something real called internal mental states(or mind) which can be verified(since you perceive your own conscious experience). But doesnīt matter for me if they are necessary or not to describe our behavior.
__________________
Last edited by Atlantis001 on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 02:52 PM
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
It is possible that covert behavior, internal mental states, are only a by product of overt behavior, or perhaps merely the epiphenomenon that accompanies neural processing. I do not necessarily believe the "mind" exists, thoughts, for me, are what we percieve when neural firing occurs, they are not somehow separate from the physiology in any manner. It is also entirely possible that thinking is merely sub-vocal, and not internal in any manner. If this is the case, then there is absolutely no support for a "mind" concept. Conciousness is only the perception of existence, we percieve the physical reality of being alive, not something outside the physical or a "mind."
If I may, I think what Regret is saying is this...
First of all, when applied to a problem a person is having, a behavioral analysis approach simplifies the "problem equation" by focusing on observable, measurable phenomena (behavior). In this context, introducing nonempirical variables (mental states) can be viewed as unnecessary and complicating. Regret is not saying that they positively don't exist, just that, at the very least, they are not necessary for addressing a problem.
Secondly, I believe his definition of spirit/soul is basically the dynamism of the living body, the interplay of energy both within the body and between the body and environment, and again, this energy, this dynamism is open to being observed and measured, so this fits in very nicely with the behavioral stance.
As a psychologist with a transpersonal-cognitive preference, I often find a behavioral analysis approach quite effective, especially if thoughts themselves are treated as behaviors. Even if I don't agree with the philosophy, behavior analysis is an excellent platform upon which a person with a problem can gain an effective/objective perspective on what's ailing them.
Regret, I hope I did your POV some justice (I'm just noticing your post above this one only now, so forgive me if I'm repeating or misstating something).
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Dec 3rd, 2006 at 04:55 PM
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
You were fairly accurate. Sometimes the behavioral concepts are so ingrained in me now that description of complex aspects are difficult to articulate in a manner that is entirely understood by those without the knowledge of the simple aspects.
As to the soul concept, the body that we observe is the soul, body and spirit are in no manner separate, they are one living soul. but overall, your assessment is fairly accurate.
I do not deny the possibility that the "mind" may exist, but it may also not exist. Given that adequate information is present, such that reference to "mind" is unnecessary and there is no mandate to reference it. I do doubt the existence of a "mind" separate in any manner from the physiological neural functioning we are beginning to observe and somewhat understand.
I don't see why you should have a problem explaining your knowledge to the skeptical...
Because you ignore the scientific fact that contradicts religion, while paying much attention to the scientific fact that supports religion. We've been through this before...
So if there is no mind, what realm does the accumulation of thought, imagination, will, desire, and conciousness exist within ?
It is irrelevant to the study of behavior, yet you incorporate it within your realm of knowledge and belief. That's my point. Two areas of study that have nothing to do with the other, but as a scientific Mormon you willfully combine fact and fiction to support what you choose to beleive.
Yes or No ?
I don't care what you beleive it to be.
Answer the questions, or don't answer them. Your choice....
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I have no issue explaining it. I have issue responding to religious questions in a thread I started to explain behavior analysis principles and views.No, there is no scientific fact that contradicts religion. I created a thread requesting some evidence of such, I received none. The closest anyone came to providing such was a statement that the absence of evidence of deity was sufficient to discount the possibility of deity existing, which is only a logical inference and not a scientific fact.
Accumulation of thought - I am unsure as to what you are referring to here. Thought is the merely neural processing.
Imagination - novel responses, there is no need for some "mind" for imagination's existence.
Will - The level of probability of behavior given adversity in performing said behavior, again no need for mentalist reference.
Desire - A descriptive term referring to any point in a behavioral chain, but particularly the physiological setting event that initiates the chain. leading to the possibility of attaining the "desired" reinforcer, only existent if previous exposure to the reinforcer has occurred or some form of vicarious learning has occurred.
Consciousness - Simply the experience of neural activity.
I combine no fact and fiction. If you wish to attack my religious beliefs do so elsewhere.
From a behavioral perspective, if an afterlife exists, behavioral principles will exist there. It is possible, and highly probable, that what constitutes a reinforcer or punisher will differ from this existence though.
__________________
Robbin' from the rich to give to themselves
Last edited by Regret on Dec 4th, 2006 at 05:45 PM
I think you misunderstand what I actually asking...I tend to be unclear, so that's my own fault, not yours:
How does thought fit into Behavioral Psychology ? If you only pay attention to behavior patterns, and pretty much disregard concepts of the mind, which include thought, desire, etc. then where does thought actually fit it ?
My psychology teacher used to contradict himself back in college. He would say that actions and behaviors (along with speech) is all he pays attention to, and that thoughts, desires, motives, etc. don't mean jack sh*t....a very behavioral approach.
But at the same time he would argue that a Peadophile cannot change thier desires, the same way a standard Rapist or Serial Killer cannot change thier desires, and that we can ONLY contain them..as a method of stopping people like that from doing more damage.
I imagine that there has to be something more than JUST neural impulses, physical reactions regarding chemical and electricity, responsible for:
Creativity
Passion
Dreams
Artistry
personal taste
bigotry
Etc.
A mind seems very necessary. So far, behavioral patterns being your only form of validation, seem more robotic than human. You beleive in something called Free Will, where does that apply ?
If we are simply physical beings, and the mind is nothing more than electric activity, and if only our actions count....then explain all of the above. Explain how we are any better than animals, plants, etc. if we simply are a result of physical aspects ?
And please don't say "soul" because I will start laughing....
I disagree AGAIN...what a surprise.
Just because i dont DO SOMETHING, doesn't mean I DON'T WANT too...
Just because i DO something, doesn't mean I WANTED TO......
I can have the will or desire to ask someone I admire out on a date...but never get to it. Does that mean I never had the will?
Desire is independent of behavior, see my above example. Another example:
-Just because I sleep with women, does not mean I am heterosexual.
-Just because I never had a dog, doesn't mean I never wanted one
- Just because he never had sex, doesn't mean he never wanted to
- Just because he/she is a Virgin, doesn't mean he/she wants to be.....
Some scientists refer to the Mind as the connection between neurons...that does not render the mind non-existant. It this is correct, it simply means the mind has a physical root (the same way X marksthespot explained how Love has a physical root)
And if Conciousness if simply the experience of neural activity, then what is the subconcious ? What is the unconcious ? Nueral activity still occurs during the sub and unconcious states...
I LOVE how we Switched roles Regret.....now it is you who is pushing scientific fact, and ME who is pushing philosophy
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Thought is the description of our perception of neural processing. "Mind" as I am referring to it is something beyond the physical, that you refer to later in your post. It is the clinging to the traditional "spirit" by those that are trying to separate from religion, imo. They have replaced "spirit", or other dualistic concept, with a "mind." I do not state that people do not think, I only state that thinking is merely the physiological process of neural activity, no more. Desires, and other mentalist concepts, are labels used, and once they are used they limit the scope of thought on the subject and possible external influence on the concepts labeled. Desires can be shifted. There are numerous studies in behavior analysis dealing with preference shift due to contingent reinforcement of other preferences.
In dealing with others, we have no means of discussing thought. There is no observable thing we can term "thought." When dealing with anyone aside from one's self thought cannot be considered because internal variables are not observable or manipulatable. Now, if I control the contingencies and the individuals behaviors change, then whatever a mentalist termed as thoughts etc. was changed, how could they prove otherwise? All that I can manipulate and alter is behavior, and behavior is the only means of assessment, so where are the assessment of some mental concept? There is none, we assessed a behavior. Where is the treatment of some mental concept? There is none, we treated a behavior. If there is a mind, there is no evidence of change in it, or even an initial state.
I doubt it. All of these are merely behaviors that have been shaped from an early age. Perhaps there was some physiological predisposition that led to one individual being more creative, passionate, artistic, etc. but the behavior was shaped. Levels of creativity has been shown to be controlled by reinforcement contingencies in the literature, the others can also be studied in a similar manner. Consider the terms you described, can any of these be observed or recognized without the behavioral component? Are they actually present with out the behavior? Are we not merely describing a behavior or the rate and propensity of a behavior?
Why would you think man is in some way physiologically superior to an animal or a plant? We do have greater capability and a faster learning curve in most cases, but we are in no manner superior, only different in a manner that we hold of higher value. Free Will is a term used in error. We have the ability to act in a variety of ways at any given time, we have never been entirely "free", the environment and our history of experiences control most of the decisions we make. When two possible reinforcing behaviors are present at the same time, and both have the same degree of value to the individual, a choice is made based on preference, once that choice is made probability of the same choice being made increases, and so the environment gains control. If the choice was never presented, and only one option was available, it will gain preferential status due to that reinforcer gaining in value due to exposure. Free will is only the ability to initially choose between two behaviors that will probably result in equal reinforcers. Choice and freedom begin disappearing with the initial behaviors of the individual.
Will and wanting to do anything are not the same thing. My definition of the term will would fit with almost any cognitive psychologist's definition of the term with the absence of mentalist description added.
If you never do something, you did not desire it as much as the thing you did. If you have that initial physiological response that we term desire, the desire existed, you did do something, your neurons fired, you considered the behavior, and the chain was broken by a chain leading to something with a higher probability of reinforcement. I never stated the chain had to complete to have any portion of such a chain be considered desire.
If mind is merely the neural activity, then I can accept such a definition as accurate. Subconscious and unconscious, states that may or may not exist. It is like hypnosis, a change in brain wave pattern occurs, but does the individual do anything they do not want to do? Hypnosis requires a subject that "wants" to be hypnotized, the subject "wants" to participate in the activity that the hypnotist is suggesting. Neural activity during unconcious and subconscious states are merely aspects of neural activity in areas of the brain that do not produce what we term thought.
I believe the physical root to be all there is. Referring to the "mind" is typically a reference to something beyond the physical. I do not believe that an extra-physical "mind" exists, only the physical.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 1st, 2006 06:32 AM
I mainly created it due to what I believe is a general lack of understanding as to the general objections behavior analysis has to the mentalist and cognitive explanations for behavior. The need for such a response should be taken as a compliment, the mentalist and/or cognitive school of thought obviously has a much stronger presence among the non-psychological community. All the same, perhaps I did not phrase my initial post in a proper and more considerate manner with respect for the cognitive/mentalist schools of thought.
