--- On Fri, 9/11/09, iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Following a rule > To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 11:18 PM > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote: > > > > I'm saying there are at least two things going on > there, > > the computer hardware is operating at one level, and > what it is > > operating on is a program. > > The program makes subtle physical changes that alter the > causal > structure. The computer, running a program, is still > acting as it does > by virtue of physical causation. There's still > no actual rule > following. > > To be clear, I am not suggesting that humans can somehow > defy physical > causation. It's just that in a comparable case, > where human action did > not involve cognitive function, we would not normally > describe that as > following rules. > One might ask what, exactly, is "cognitive function"? There are so many terms that are worthless, from a scientific standpoint (like "voluntary"), and "cognitive" is certainly one of them. As far as I can see, the term has been used in the context of any behavior (and "cognition" is closely tied to behavior, though for mainstream psychologists, and those they have corrupted, behavior is simply an "indication" of "cognition) EXCEPT that which some would call "an unconditioned reflex." From that standpoint, it is difficult to imagine many behavioral phenomena that would NOT be called "rule following" by much of mainstream psychology and the fields it has corrupted. And, indeed, this is largely the course taken by mainstream psychology and the fields it has corrupted. Still, given that some people would argue that physical phenomena "obey laws," this is hardly surprising. I would argue that "rule-following" should be reserved for circumstances where behavior is literally mediated by verbal behavior, either verbal behavior emitted by the person him or herself or by another (i.e., "rule-governed behavior," cf Skinner). A person, for example, may be literally "following a rule" when they read the top of a child-proof pill bottle (i.e., "push down while turning") and this exerts discriminative control over their behavior with respect to the bottle. After the first time (or a few times) the behavior of opening the bottle may cease to be rule-governed at all (it simply becomes an operant response class). The distinction between the former and latter is of utmost importance. Glen Group Home Page: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html Group Discussion Board: http://seanwilson.org/forum/ Google Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs FreeList Archive: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs FreeList for September: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009 FreeList for August: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/08-2009 Group Creator's Page: http://seanwilson.org/ Today's Messages: http://alturl.com/whcf Messages From Last 3 Days: http://alturl.com/d9vz This Week's Messages: http://alturl.com/yeza Yahoo Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/