[Wittrs] Re: Following a rule

  • From: Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:52:35 -0700 (PDT)

--- 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/

Other related posts: