SAMSA: Pigeons, humans, and learning

[pErvinalia]

Just to be clear, I'm not "ignoring" behaviour. That much should be obvious given I started a thread concerning behaviour. I'm seeking an explanation for those behaviours.

[JimC]

Just to be clear, I'm not "ignoring" behaviour. That much should be obvious given I started a thread concerning behaviour. I'm seeking an explanation for those behaviours.

Such explanations can occur at different levels of reduction. I think Samsa's point is that models of a given organism's behaviour, with good predictive power, can be constructed without reference to the neural mechanics behind hem. I think that is quite possible, and valuable in its own way, but it is always more satisfying if such models can be effectively tied to neurophysiology.

[Mr.Samsa]

Just to be clear, I'm not "ignoring" behaviour. That much should be obvious given I started a thread concerning behaviour. I'm seeking an explanation for those behaviours.

Fair enough, if that's the case then you're happy with an explanation at the level of behavior, right? It doesn't have to be a neuro explanation?

[Mr.Samsa]

Such explanations can occur at different levels of reduction. I think Samsa's point is that models of a given organism's behaviour, with good predictive power, can be constructed without reference to the neural mechanics behind hem. I think that is quite possible, and valuable in its own way, but it is always more satisfying if such models can be effectively tied to neurophysiology.

Yeah you're pretty much right on what my point is but I'd quibble over "more satisfying". For me neuro explanations (and often any explanation at a lower level) is less satisfying as it tends to answer a question many people aren't actually interested in.

For example, if we ask the question "why did that guy vote for Obama?" then neuro data can be important an interesting, like certain activations of the brain that make choices possible, or certain structures making ingroup biases more likely etc, but most of the time people want to know the psychological or sociological reasons why someone would vote for him. Saying that there was a greater activation in the amygdala doesn't really help us (at least directly) in that respect. At best, when it does help (like when we find a brain area that correlates to something like ingroup bias), it only does so by indirectly telling us something we already knew at the psychological level - ie that ingroup biases affect behavior.

[mistermack]

It pains me to agree, but what the hell.

If word or excel is giving me pain, I'm not interested in what's inside the computer's chip.
It's what the software does that's of interest.

[pErvinalia]

Just to be clear, I'm not "ignoring" behaviour. That much should be obvious given I started a thread concerning behaviour. I'm seeking an explanation for those behaviours.

Fair enough, if that's the case then you're happy with an explanation at the level of behavior, right? It doesn't have to be a neuro explanation?

Well in general, I'm looking for the link between "consciousness" and behaviour/learning. Conscious choice should be considered part of (or indeed its own) behaviour. So if you include ideation in behaviour, then no, it doesn't necessarily have to be a neuro explanation. But you've then got explain this natural selection business in terms of "conscious choice".

[tuco]

Dont mind me, bookmarking. Have not find any other way yet.

[pErvinalia]

Ha! I forgot about this thread. I was supposed to get back to it. I think too much psychology starts to do my head in. I get too introspective and nihilistic...