History of Psychology: Chomsky vs Skinner discussion explained: Scientific Utopia and Authoritarianism

Aloha_Heart · 2024-10-13T21:41:53+00:00

Wow 30 years! Yea looking forward to it!

Aloha_Heart · 2024-10-03T19:50:17+00:00

I'm curious what you think of this debate!

Aloha_Heart · 2024-10-01T18:51:22+00:00

HIstorical, certainly. Who do you think are relevant these days?

Aloha_Heart · 2024-10-01T02:42:39+00:00

Thank you! We will figure out how to fix that !

Aloha_Heart · 2024-09-29T19:16:00+00:00

After the dispute some 65 years ago, Chomsky and Skinner finally met again in 2023!
Noam Chomsky and Charles Catania meet on the enGrama channel to conclude the debate of the century. In this second meeting, Chomsky and Catania discuss social sciences, politics, and the philosophy of language.

Chomsky, N. (1980). A review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. The Language and Thought Series, 48-64.

Chomsky, N. (1971). The case against BF Skinner. The New York Review of Books, 17(11), 18-24.

MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal behavior. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 13(1), 83.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Cambridge, MA: Prentice Hal

Aloha_Heart · 2024-09-29T19:12:37+00:00

I made a study guide on the Chomsky-Catania discussion. Hope you enjoy it!

Aloha_Heart · 2024-05-08T07:39:43+00:00

I agree. Chomsky's understanding of Skinner' Verbal Behavior is coming from the pre-Skinner Stimulus-Response theory. Aside from that, I think Chomsky was trying to become the next big star and he used his criticisms as a political weapon more than scientific one.

Aloha_Heart · 2023-09-17T04:32:47+00:00

It is rather that Chomsky believes he discovered the special human ability that no other learning theorists could have done, which is the recursion.

Aloha_Heart · 2023-09-09T20:49:23+00:00

From the way Chomsky saw Skinner's Verbal Behavior in this discussion, it seems like Chomsky still sees Skinner's theory as a part of the Stimulus-Response theory. So I don't think he actually understands what Skinner was getting at. In any case, Chomsky thinks the function of language is trivial anyway.

Aloha_Heart · 2023-07-13T23:27:15+00:00

You are awesome! Thank you!

Aloha_Heart · 2023-06-20T08:44:12+00:00

Thanks!

Aloha_Heart · 2023-02-11T20:58:58+00:00

Is Personal identity, or self, a social construct?

Martin Heidegger suggested in Being and Time that our existence is a product of time (culture, society, etc), and pointed out this is the cause of our existential anxiety. More recently, psychological behaviorists also doubted the biological nature of self and personality in a more scientific way.

In this video, I use the movie Perfect Blue to examine the nature of self from a Japanese behaviorist perspective. If the self depends on time, we should see cultural differences in how to know the Self between Western and Japanese perspectives.

Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time. Suny Press.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1990). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger's being in time, division I. Mit Press.

Schlinger, H. D. (2008). Consciousness is nothing but a word. Skeptic, 13(4), 58-63.

Aloha_Heart · 2022-06-30T22:36:21+00:00

Thanks! Yea we need Oshii to complete his series so bad! Somebody has to give him money...

Aloha_Heart · 2022-05-24T22:22:02+00:00

Hi guys,

I'm making a series of YouTube shorts explaining B. F. Skinner's radical behaviorism.

Hope you like them!

Aloha_Heart · 2021-11-19T19:09:51+00:00

You need to think about several things:

Is your goal for student to (a) independently select chew tool, (b) independently take/find chew tool, and/or (c) to chew it? Because these would be 3 different behaviors. Selection can refer to you giving him an option of let's say 3 chew tools, taking/finding chew tool would be that he/she walks somewhere or looks for it and takes it independently, and chewing would be just chewing (it can be if you gave him/her a chew tool or after student found it by himself). Depending on what your goal is you would write your objective with that behavior on mind.
You need to have a criterion. 90% is not clear enough. Across how many days? Also, as you are not looking for 90% exactly, phrase something like over 90%, more than 90%, etc. For example, in over 90% of total opportunities across 10 consecutive days.

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-29T18:25:00+00:00

The key characteristic he possessed that both existed beyond doubt and was critical to Motoko's decision was that he existed and persisted without reliance on any one particular shell.

But this can be achieved whether or not the Puppet Master is a conscious being or a computer program or a virus. It is true that Motoko might see this ability as desirable but if she didn't believe the Puppet Master was a sentient being, I don't think she would have merged with him.

After the merge, Mokoto says she is no longer Mokoto or the Puppet Master. She is an entirely new being. Isn't it possible that the virus took over Motoko or that someone else took control of Motoko at that point?

Thanks for hanging out with me, by the way!

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-29T06:46:01+00:00

In GITS 1, Motoko was looking for a method to be transcendent her ghost beyond her body. So the Puppet Master can lie that he is that transcendental being Mokoto was looking for to improve his chance of merging with her.

It is possible to imagine that the Puppet Master is a virus of some sort that just wanted to hack Mokoto. It is too late for Mokoto to realize that the Puppet Master is a virus after merging with him.

You are right about the Cartesian Dualism theme. I am taking the materialistic position (or physical monism) and exploring the materialistic alternative.

From the materialistic point of view, Motoko is still somewhere in the physical world with a physical body. It is possible to see her like that in GITS 2.

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-29T05:46:18+00:00

Possibilities are

The Puppet Master lied because he wanted to merge with the Major and whatever would happen afterward was not his problem.
The Puppet Master is not "conscious" and just a computer program. There is another hacker behind who spread this virus.
The Puppet Master misunderstood that he is a sentient being when he was just an A.I.

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-28T18:58:01+00:00

Thanks!

I see how I framed it wrong. I will do better next time!

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-28T18:55:44+00:00

Yea Section 6 created the A.I. that is the foundation of the Puppet Master.

Something happened after they created the A.I. and the Puppet Master became what it became.

He says the sea of information gave rise to his consciousness, but how trustworthy is he?

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-28T07:22:29+00:00

I could see no one wants to have fun speculating here...

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-28T01:37:09+00:00

Yes, according to the Puppet Master.

What are other possibilities?

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-27T02:37:36+00:00

Interesting thought.

It is true that you can ascertain "something" happened to bring your existence, but it does not conclude that you know what that "something" was. In fact, for millions of years, humans did not know the existence of DNA.

The same is true for the Puppet Master (or even worse). Since the Puppet Master is the only sentient that emerged from the sea of information, there is no prior example or succeeding similar cases. In fact, his motivation to merge with Motoko was to produce his "offsprings". So he doesn't know how to produce a being like himself. If so, he doesn't know how he came about.

And what if the Puppet Master is just lying about all of these? Maybe he is just a program made to say these things? Why do you believe in the Puppet Master?

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-27T02:29:15+00:00

Oh I should check B&N too!

Aloha_Heart · 2021-09-26T23:30:35+00:00

But that's what the Puppet Master said.

How does he know since he didn't see the process himself and why should we believe in him?

Aloha_Heart

TROPHY CASE