Oheisessa sosiobiologi Bernard Baarsin usein palstoillakin viitatussa kirjoituksessa löytyy kerrankin Ivan Petrovitsh Pavlovin ehdollistumisteorian "konkreettista arvostelua", eikä vain hoeta, että "kumottu, kumottu, kumottu".


Osoittautuu kuitenkin, että muka "tapahtunut kumoaminen" on puhdasta härskiä valehtelua alusta loppuun!


PAVLOV AND THE FREEDOM REFLEX


http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelut/psykologia-aivot-ja-aistit-f12/mite...


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111444/


http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/FlatMessageIndex/222637?page=1...


http://nakokulma.net/index.php?topic=10583.msg229849#msg229849


I.P Pavlov and the Freedom Reflex.


Bernard J. Baars


We started off with a very simple experiment. The dog was placed in a stand. It stood quietly enough at first, but as time went on it became excited and struggled to get out of the stand, scratching at the floor, gnawing the supports,and so on. For a long time we remained puzzled over the unusual behaviour of this animal, until it occurred to us at last that it might be the expression of a special freedom reflex, and that the dog simply could not remain quiet when it was constrained in the stand.   I. P. Pavlov (1927, Vol. I, Ch. XXVIII)

     

If ‘A’ is drowning on one side of a pier and ‘B’ is equally drowning on the other, and you have one lifebelt, to which of the two would you like to throw it? Which would I save, Pavloff or Shaw? What is the good of Shaw? And what is the good of Pavloff? Pavloff is a star which lights the world, shining above a vista hitherto unexplored. Why should I hesitate with my lifebelt for one moment?         H.G.Wells

     

Pavlov is the biggest fool I know; any policeman could tell you that much about a dog.             George Bernard Shaw


PICTURE OF PAVLOV TO BE SUPPLIED


Correspondence: B.J. Baars, 3616 Chestnut St. Apt. 3, Lafayette, CA 94549, USA.


Bernard Baars (BB) is an Affiliated Research Fellow at

The Neurosciences Institute in San Diego.

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, No. 11, 2003, pp. 19–40

  

Abstract: Why was Ivan Pavlevich Pavlov so widely celebrated in the decades after 1900? As his story of the ‘freedom reflex’ illust-rates, Pavlov often overstated his observations. By calling all innate behaviour a (unconditioned, HM) reflex and all learned behaviour a conditional reflex, he meant to eliminate consciousness and volition from science. Pavlov’s universal reflex explanation became the prototype for behaviourism. ”


SB: Hän ei ollut Ivan ”Pavlevich” vaan Ivan Petrovitsh Pavlov.(On usein havaittavis- sa,että hölynpölytieteilijät kirjoittavat haukkumiensa demonisoitavien nimet tahallaan väärin, etteivät lukijat rutiininomaisesti tarkista asioita, jopa viiteluetteloon.

Teoria kaiken keskushemostotoiminnan refleksirakenteesta ei ollut hänen, vaan hä-nen neurofysio-logianprofessorinsa  Ivan Mihailovitsh Setshenovin. Itse refleksin kä-site on Descartesilta, joka sotilasvälskärinä ja kahden kuuluisan sotilaslääkärin lap-senlapsena (joka oli vain poliitikkoisänsä mieliksi ja samalla vaariensa harmiksi suo-rittanut lakialan yliopistotutkinnon) erittäin hyvin selvillä myös refleksiteorian fysiolo-gisista todisteista ainakin ääreishermoston alueella: viestit aistimuksista reaktioihin kulkivat keskushermoston kautta, sinne tulevat (afferentit) ja sieltä lähtevät (efferen-tit) eri reittiä. Teoriaa kehittivät mm.Albrecht von Haller,Georg Prohaska ja  Marshall Hall (1790–1857).

Setshenov osoitti mm.,että hermojen signaalit ovat sähköisiä ja että ulkoinen vaikut- taminen sammakon aivoihin muuttaa sen refleksien toimintaa. Pavlov jakoi kaikki ai-vokuorellisten refleksit kahteen ryhmään: kaikille lajin yksilöille yhteisiin geneettisesti muodostuviin ehdottomiin ja pääasiassa opittujen (ja ennen kaikkea myös poisopitta- vissa oleviin) ehdollisiin reflek-seihin. Pavlov määritteli inhimillisen tajunnan mekanismiksi kielellisrakenteisen, opitun toisen signalisointisysteemin.

Edelleen on mainittava eräs henkilö,jota Setshenov ja Pavlov esittivät ja saivat hy- väksytyksi Venäjän ulkomaiseksi kunnia-akateemikoksi tämän eläinneurofysio-logian väitöskirjan perusteella: eläintieteen tohtori, naparetkeilijä ja sittemmin Kan-sainliiton pakolaiskomissaari Fridtjof Nansen, joka ensimmäisenä esitti glia-solu-jen olevan keskushermoston ”todellinen toimija”, ja neuronien muodostavan sen ”kaapeliverkon”.


BB: ” Other scientists did not accept the universal reflex explanation. It was not Pavlov’s experiments but his uto- pian promises that led to his meteoric public rise.

Pavlov’s dream attracted new,rising elites, particularly social reformers like H.G. Wells and  the Fabians in Britain. In the Soviet Union he gave credence to efforts to fashion a New Soviet Man. ”


SB: Pavlovilla ja tieteellä ylipäätään ei ole mitään tekemistä noiden taitelijoiden ideoiden kanssa.


BB: ” And in the United States, John B.Watson and B.F.Skinner rose to public fame in his footsteps, using extremely limited evidence to make utopian promises of human perfectibility.

Pavlov’s vision lent credibility to the behaviourist attack on consciousness. ”


SB: Nuo behavioristit eivät hyväksyneet toista signalointisysteemiä aidon tajun- nan mekanismina.Watson kuitenkin,yllättävää kyllä,piti ajattelua kielellisenä. Jotakin mätää teoriassa varmasti oli, joka sitten "puhkesi kukkaan" Skinnerin älyttömässä "verbaalisten reaktioiden teoriassa", jolla ei ole tekemistä Pavlovin 2. signaalisaatio- systeemin kanssa. Skinnerin teorian virhe on, että siinä ehdollisten refleksien systee- mi ei ole ollenkaan systeemi, jossa ylemmät tasot ohjaavat ja dominoivat alempia.

Pavlov ei todellakaan ole vastuussa heidän väärintulkinnoistaan hänen löytämistään luonnonlaeista.

Lisäksi Watson mm. piti selkäydintä tärkeänä ehdollistumiselimenä (mitä se ei pavlovilaisessa, palautuvassa mielessä ole, vaikka ei ole pois suljettua, etteikö siel- läkin voi tapahtua muunlaista oppimista, ja Skinner taas väitti instrumentaalisilla (operandisilla,kokonaan opituilla) ehdollisilla reflekseillä olevan fysiologisesti ko- konaan eri mekanismi kuin klassisilla (joissa reaktio-osa on ainakin osin geneet-tinen). Tuohon Skinnerin kantaan yhtyi neuvostoliittolainen neurofysiologi Ivan Beri- tashvili siltä pohjalta, että hän esitti ensimmäisenä ehdollistumisen mekanismiksi aivan oikein aivojen neuronien aksonien myelinisoitumista ja sen aiheuttamia muu- toksia signaalinkulussa, eli Fieldsin mekanismia. Beritashvili katsoi, ettei tuo selitä kuitenkaan nopeaa kertaoppimista, vaan sellainen perustuu erityiselle synapsiop- pimiselle, aivan oikein taaskin nykykäsityksen mukaan.Noita tarvitaan kuitenkin aina molempia vaihtelevissa määräsuhteissa kaikessa (aivokuorellisten) oppimisessa, jota nimitetään kokonaisuudessaan (pavlovilaiseksi) ehdollistumiseksi. Niiden välillä vaikuttaa LTP-ilmiö (long time potentiation, Terje Lømo, 1968).

Ehdollistumisen nykyisin tunnettua mekanismia esitti tuolta pohjalta neuvostoliitto-lainen Beritashvilin oppilas Aleksandr Iljitsh Roitbak 1970, ja sen todisti R. Douglas Fields 2008.

 

BB: ” While radical behaviourists were always a small minority, they successfully en-forced a scientific boycott of the ‘mentalistic’ concepts of everyday psychology.After  Karl Lashley pointed out in 1930 that Pavlov’s ideas contradicted the known brain evidence,B.F.Skinner changed the term ‘reflex’ to ‘stimulus-response relationship’.”


SB: Tuo on kyllä ollut ´refleksin´ määritelmä´ Descartesista alkaen! Eikä siihen AINAKAAN PAVLOV ole mitään muutosta ajanut!

Sovjetskaja entsiklopedijan korkeasti kunnioittama Karl Lashley ei kyllä ole kumon- nut ainoatakaan Pavlovin ideaa. Lashley näyttää olleen Marty Serenon teorian edel- läkävijä näköaivokuoren muuttumisesta kielellistymisen kautta tietoisen tajunnan neurofysiologiseksi pohjaksi.


BB: ” For another fifty years Skinner convinced the world that consciousness and volition could be ignored. ”


SB: Pavlov ei ikinä kiistänyt korkeimpia psyykkisiä toimintoja kuten tietoisuutta ja tahtoa!


BB: ”Pavlov’s method is still useful, but none of his utopian promises have been fulfilled. Today, no scientist believes that reflex arcs are basic units of learning. ”


SB: Ellei ole refleksikaaria, ei ole ehdollisia refleksejäkään. Ne ovat niiden olemas- saolomuoto. Niiden muodostu- misen pohtimisella on tärkeä rooli mm. Fieldsin kirjassa The Other Brain.


BB: ”The evidence suggests that Pavlovian association itself requires consciousness.

I.P. Pavlov was a man of great personal integrity. Yet he led the way to an era of taboo against consciousness and voluntary control. ”


SB: Harvinaisen härskiä valehtelua ja puhdasta paskaa, kuten jokainen linkki vaikkapa Sovjetskajaan osoittaa!!!

Pavlov ei missään tapauksessa väitä tietoisen tajunnan eikä tahdon olemassaoloa vastaan IHMISELLÄ!

Ne ovat hänen kielellisrakenteiseksi katsomasta II signalisaa-tiosysteemin toimintoja!


BB: ”Pavlov was a founding hero of the behaviouristic myth of the origins of psycho- logy,which erased the first great age of consciousness science. Most alarming was the immense popu- larity of Pavlov’s dream,which stripped away the most essential elements of human nature. ”


SB: Absoluuttisen väärä syytös PAVLOVIA kohtaan,joka nimenomaan lähti ihmisen psykologian symbolirakenteisesta erikoislaadusta, siitä tajunnasta, tietoisesta ja alitajunnasta!

Mitä tulee pahakaikuiseen sanaan ”ihmisluonto”, kuten esimerkiksi tässä linkissä on valehdeltu monen ”tabula rasa” -klassikon suuhun, sellaisen ylihistoriallisen geneetti- sen ”ihmis-luonnon” pavlovismi kiistää, mutta EI SUINKAAN IHMISEN ERIKOIS-LAATUA LAJINA juuri symbolirakenteisen YHTEISKUNNALLISEN TAJUNTANSA takia!


BB.  ”  I: Introduction

 

One of the great puzzles in scientific history is the international acclaim that greeted I.P. Pavlov’s reports about conditional reflexes,(1.) just after 1900. Everything can be questioned about this discovery — whether it was a discovery at all;

Many sources point out that ‘conditioned reflex’ is a translation error (e.g., Miller, 1962). Pavlov’s Russian term translates as ‘conditional reflex’ because he thought animals learned a conditional ‘if- then’ relationship between a signal like a bell and a biological stimulus like food. “


SB. Kyse ei ole mistään “konditionaalista”, vaan venäjän sana tarkoittaa kirjaimelli-sesti “olosuhderefleksiä” (uslovija=olosuhteet) eli sellaista,joka ei ole ominainen organismille vaan sen suhteelle juuri tiettyyn ympäristöön.


Tuollaiset kaakatukset ”kognitiotieteen” perustajilta osoittavat, että ”uusi” oppi on alun perin syntynyt antipav-lovismin vilpillisen lipun alla, ja sen päämäärät ovat olleet poliittisia eivätkä tieteellisiä.


BB: “ It has been translated correctly into French and German but unfortunately not English. “


HM: Potaskaa.Saksan “bedingter Reflex” on tasan sama ilmaus kuin englannin ”conditioned”.”Sopimalla pakotettu” olisi saksaksi ”bedungener”,samanmuotoisesta nominatiivista bedingen.


BB: “ This has led to much misunderstanding.The word ‘conditioning’ encourages the false idea that Pavlovian learning is automatic,simple and mechanical. ”


SB: Se onkin nimenomaan automaattista perusmuodossaan: sitä tapahtuu jopa kohdussa, unessa,ja tietoisen (toki ehdollista sekin) oppimisen ja muun toiminnan taustalla ja sivussa. Pavlovilaista ehdol- listumista tapahtuu aina jossakin määrin, jos on aivokuori (cortex).


BB: ” In fact, it involves very complex brain adaptation, and seems to require con- sciousness of the conditional association (Hugdahl,1998;Lovibond&Shanks, 2002). (See section II.4). ”


SB: Ehdollistuminen ilmiönä ei EDELLYTÄ tietoisuutta! Jos se edellyttäisi, se mm. ei voisi sitä SELITTÄÄ!

 

(Oikein, oikein mielenkiintoista tietoa hörhöistä ja huijareista…)


BB: ” It is implausible to think that Pavlov was forced to use the term ‘reflex’ because he had no other words available. ”


SB: Sana on AIVAN KERRASSAAN ERINOMANEN kansainvälinen hyvinmääritelty jo vuosi- satainen tieteellinen termi, eikä Pavlovilla ollut vähäisintäkään syytä lähteä nimitysasioissa poukkoilemaan oppi-isäänsä Setshenovia vastaan!


BB: ” Pavlov could have used the standard term ‘association’ with its long history from Aristotle to Locke.He had many other possibilities.”


SB. Kyllä hän käytti ja muutkin käyttävät sitäkin termiä: ehdollinen yhteys (´uslov- naja svjas'), mutta se tarkoittaa pelkästään ehdollista refleksiä. Ehdolliset ja ehdot- tomat refleksit kutou- tuvat yhteen mm. vaistoiksi (eläimillä) ja vieteiksi, ja myös tajunnaksi, joka tosin ei SISÄLLÄ ehdottomia refleksejä).


BB: ” Pavlov used ‘reflex’ because it gave an air of physiological reality to his un- tested inferences, and because it allowed him to purge the suspect notion of goals. That was probably a harmful choice, witness the fact that many psychologists are still unable to talk coherently about goals,the key idea in any conception of motivation.”


SB: Päämäärät sopivat aivan eriomaisesti Pavlovin 2. signaalisysteemiin, ovat sen ohjaamassa toiminnassa suorastaan a ja o...


BB: ” The taboo power of the reflex idea is still great,regardless of evidence whether reflex arcs are basic units of brain activity,as Pavlov believed; whether learned refle- xes can explain more complex learning; and whether they can be learned without consciousness. In all these respects the evidence shows that Pavlov was simply wrong. ”


SB: Ei suinkaan ole väärässä,vaan täysin oikeassa.Kielessä esimerkiksi sana on muuntunut instrumentaalinen ehdollinen refleksi, ja sitä edustaa aivoissa opittu refleksikaari, joka toimii puheessa ja ajattelussa huomattavan automaattisesti.

Ehdolliset refleksit muodostavat systeemin, jossa ylemmät tasot rakentuvat alempien varaan ja ohjaavat kokonaisuutta.


BB: ” What cannot be denied is the messianic enthusiasm that inspired Pavlov (1849 - 1936) and his potent following among Western opinion leaders. H.G.Wells’ choice to throw his life-belt to Pavlov rather than his friend Shaw is only one example. Prominent philosophers like Bertrand Russell took his claims seriously, and he inspired Western behaviourism through Watson and Skinner.

Paul de Kruif called him ‘The Liberator of Mankind ...the Pasteur of the human brain and heart ...Russian Saint of Science ...this greybearded old Light of the North has discovered the way not to change human nature but to alter the human heart through the human brain’. L.A. Andreyev celebrated him as ‘The Great Teacher and Master of Science’ (Andreyev, 1937), and Gantt wrote that ‘Pavlov’s (method) will permanently elevate him among the Great Scien-tists.’ (Gantt, 1927, p. 30). Pavlov seemed to provide the scientific key for a new, socialist utopia. It was the great secret of his popularity.

 Pavlov’s celebrity changed history. Words like ‘Pavlovian’ and ‘condi-tioning’ are now embed- ded in our language, resonant with mechanis- tic connotations. “


SB: Sellaisiin ne saattavat liittyä lähinnä USA:ssa Watsonin ja Skinnerin väärennys- työn tuloksena, jotka molemmat olivat armeijan pääpsykologeja. Ja heistä vain Wat-son väitti, että ”tietoisuutta ei ole”,että se on ”harhaa” (kuten muuten monet ”evoluu- tiopsykologit/kognitionistitkin” YHÄ väittävät). Skinner väitti vain, että ”tietoisuutta/ tajuntaa ei voida tutkia luotettavasti (luonnon)tieteellisillä, scientific, menetel-millä”, KUTEN EI MUUTEN VOIDAKAAN, muuta YHTEISKUNTATIETEET (engl. social arts) OVAT MYÖS TIETEITÄ (ainakin jotkin niistä)!


BB: “ Yet every human being who wakes up in the morning knows something about consciousness. “


SB: Pavlov kaikkein viimeksi kiisti mitään tuollaista!


BB: “ Everyone trying to do a difficult thing knows voluntary effort. These fundamen- tal, everyday experiences were erased from academic psychology. In many places they are still taboo. “ 


SB: Pavlov ei kiistänyt tahtoa!


Tahdon kiistämien todellinen “guru” on saksan natsijohdon kulissientakainen (ja jopa “vainottua” leikkinyt) pääideologi Hans Berger,jo nuoruudestaan skitsofreeninen aivo-sähkökäyrä EEG:n keksijä, joka uskoi ihmisen kommunikoivan telepaattisesti hänen mittaamillaan ”aivoaalloilla”,johon maailmankuvaan ei sopinut minkäänlainen todelli- nen yksilöllinen fysikaalinen tajunnan perusta! Hänen aseenkantajansa oli sitten muuan Benjamin Libet.


http://aamulehdenblogit.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hannah-arendtin-tot...


Pavlovin ja Bergerin opit olivat verisesti vastakkain II maailmanosodassa!


http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2011/09/kuka-onkaan-kaikkien-aik...


BB: “Today we can directly observe the brain activity underlying consciousness and voluntary effort (Baars, 2002; Spence & Frith, 999). But we cannot claim originality. From the beginning of written thought, about the sixth century BCE, philosophers and sages talked about conscious experience with clarity - in Greece and India and surely in numerous other places. Over the centuries many thinkers contributed to a growing body of understanding. Aristotle, for example, suggested that visual images were ‘faint copies’ of visual sensations,an idea we now know to be reflected in brain activity (e.g., Kreiman et al., 2000). Conscious experiences of music, colour, ab-straction, language, meditation, emotion and social relationships were explored for centuries. “


 

The Golden Age of consciousness science: 1780–1910


The first age of consciousness science spans the nineteenth century beginning with basic discoveries in psychophysics, vision and hearing, colour perception, hypnosis and suggestion, dissociative disorders,brain damage,conversion disorders, the selec-tivity of attention,the ‘narrowness of consciousness’,mental imagery, and many other fundamental phenomena; all have been rediscovered in the last several decades. Its pioneers include Fechner, Helmholtz, Charcot, Janet, Wundt, James and Freud, a unique array of first-class minds.

[2] Quoted by Gantt, 1927, p. 20.

Two remarkable achievements illustrate this pioneering age. One is the Psychophy- sical Law, an enormously general law stating that equal increases in sensory input energy are experienced as smaller and smaller increments of subjective intensity; or, the other way around, that equal steps in subjective intensity require geometric in-creases in physical energy. An everyday example is a light bulb that can be switched in equal steps from 0 to 40 watts,then 40 to 80 and finally to 120 watts of light ener- gy. Turning the light switch one click is experienced as a major increase in bright-ness; the second click adds an equal amount of physical energy but is consciously experienced as only a small increase in brightness;and the third increment is hardly perceived at all.Discovered by Gustav Fechner and others about 1820, the Psycho-physical Law applies to all the senses and even submodalities like heat,pain, muscu- lar effort, and sweetness. It also applies to abstract judge- ments like money, effort and criminality. It appears to be a fully general law, a remarkable achievement for a young science of consciousness.

The Psychophysical Law has been sustained consistently for two centuries. It has an extra-ordinary range of application: It is the basis for the decibel scale of subjective loudness used in music recording and audio equipment.It explains why the first bite of chocolate cake tastes so good,the second less so,and third much less; that what causes a fashion sensation this year is gone the next;and why as we get older, days and weeks that once seemed to last forever begin to flash by faster and faster. It may explain why millionaires need to earn more money the richer they become, and why addicts may need higher drug doses over time. In all these examples equal in-crements in objective quantities appear smaller and smaller against a growing basis of comparison;and comparison is the essence of the Psychophysical Law.It is a classic piece of scientific discovery, an elegant, precise, general and fully predictable feature of conscious sensation.

Another dramatic topic that gripped the 1800s was what we might call  the Dissoci-ation Cluster - the linked occurrence at certain times in history of conversion hyste-ria,childhood trauma and its after-effects, sexual vicissitudes and suggestibility. Why these four Horsemen of the Apocalypse seem to rise together at certain times and places is not clear,though fast, dramatic changes in social roles seem to be a factor. All four elements of the Dissociation Cluster transform conscious experience.

In conversion disorder bodily feelings are changed,leading to hypochondriacal hyper- sensitivity in some parts of the body and anaesthesia in others;trauma often leads to a dazed sense of unreality, a feeling of distance from ordinary experience, and other forms of dissociation; sexuality always colours our conscious experien- ces of others and self; and hypnotic suggestion can lead to minor hallucinations, changed percep-tual experiences, tunnel vision,radical changes in the body senses,amnesia, blocking of pain,and the like. All four phenomena transform our subjective experience.

An outbreak of the Dissociation Cluster is not a happy event. After decades in the shadows it came back in the 1980s and early 1990s, witness an epidemicof child- abuse reports, along with roiling debates about sexual and family conflicts; a great upswing of reported dissocia- tive disorders like multiple personality; mass panics caused by vaguely defined physical symptoms often attributed to media horror sto- ries with little scientific evidence;and not least,an increase in reports of dissociation and suggestibility in traumatized individuals.

Outbreaks of the Dissociation Cluster may signal severe societal stress. Its symp- toms were first described by Hippocrates in the wartorn Greek city-states of the sixth century BC.In modern times the same cluster emerged just before the French Revo-lution, when the Viennese physician Anton Mesmer began treating patients with a suggestion therapy rationalized by the notion of animal magnetism. Mesmer made great numbers of aristocratic converts in Vienna and Paris,many of them women, until he was discredited by the French Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism of 1785 (with Benjamin Franklin serving as a prominent member). The Royal Commis-sion concluded that the dramatic cures Mesmer claimed for Animal Magnetism were due to the patients’ fervent desires, aided by their imagination and shaped by sug-gestions from the mesmerist.In a secret Addendum, the Commissio- ners warned Louis XVI of a pervasive taint of sexuality in the procedure, as Mesmer conducted his sweeping magnetic rituals over the convulsing bodies of his often female clients.

In France the discovery of suggestibility started a century of increasingly excellent research on hypnosis, dissociation and sexual trauma culminating in the discoveries of Jean Charcot, Pierre Janet, Bernheim and Liébault. Sigmund Freud travelled to Paris in the 1880s to study with Jean Charcot and others. On his second trip he was amazed to see in Bernheim’s laboratory a subject who carried out a suggestion post-hypnotically,of which he was not aware at the time.This common hypnotic phenome-non struck Freud with the force of revelation.It was the most visible evidence he had ever seen for the power of unconscious motives,and one he would often cite in later years.

William James also experimented with hypnosis and was well acquainted with others in the Harvard community who explored the Dissociation Cluster. The psychiatrist Morton Prince published the first detailed history of a multiple personality patient, a Miss Beauchamp, a clear and humane story quite consistent with our current evi-dence. Not surprisingly, James’ Principles has excellent descriptions of hypnosis and dissociative phenomena, multiple personality, fugue, depersonalization, and psychogenic amnesia, all confirmed by current evidence.

The Psychophysical Law and the scientific study of the Dissociation Cluster are high achievements of the Golden Age of consciousness science. Its findings are on dis-play in the 1,400 pages of James’ Principles. In spite of inevitable controversies, this extraordinary era gathered momentum to about 1910, when it abruptly died. Later historians created a new ‘myth of origins’ of their science, which declared the nine-teenth century to be confused and prescientific. It was not. The Golden Age was simply erased by behaviourism.


The coup against consciousness


Pavlov was the first well-known scientist to insist that all reference to conscious experience be expunged from science. “


Valhetta. Hän ei esittänyt mitään sellaista missään vaiheessa. Hänen kantansa oli aina, että ajattelu edustaan ehdollisreflek-torisen toiminnan korkeinta astetta.

Pavlov ei ollut sanan varsinaisessa merkityksessä behavioristi ollenkaan.


BB: “ Thus, a painful electrical shock was called a ‘destructive stimu- lus’. Tasting, smelling and eating was the ‘food reflex’, fear a ‘defen- sive reflex’, and submissive- ness the ‘slavery reflex’. The personal perspective of the subject was systemati- cally erased. “


SB: Valhetta. ELÄIMILLÄ tosin ei ole ihmisen kaltaista tietoi-suutta, koska niillä ei ole kieltä, eikä siten tajuntaa erotukseksi muista ehdollista reflekseistä!


BB: “ By 1950 even the word ‘consciousness’ had disappeared from the textbooks (e.g., Woodworth & Schlossberg, 1954). “


SB: Mistähän neuvostoliittolaisista oppikirjoista tuo olisi kadonnut!!??

 

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotski


BB: “Today the taboo may be lifting.Terms like ‘conscious’ and ‘subjective’ are again in the scientific headlines (e.g.,Logothetis&Schall, 1989; Kreiman et al., 2002; Edel-man & Tononi, 2001). In rediscovering consciousness and volition, con- temporary science is substantially in agreement with the long history of ideas, and opposed to the purge of the twentieth century.As we return to consciousness it will be important to understand the era of taboo, and perhaps to rethink the history that was told to justify it. “


SB: Täysin räävitöntä vääristelyä,mitä tulee Pavloviin ja muuhun Neuvostoliiton psy- kologiaan ja neurofysiologiaan. Tuohon konkreettiseen behariorismin haukkumiseen ja miten se vääristelytunkio kadetaan eh- dottoman syyttömän Pavlovin niskaa, toisessa jutussa.


PS1:  Ja mitä kaikkea joudutaankaan olettamaan, JOS AJATTELU EI OLE KIELLISTÄ:

http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/FlatMessageIndex/64113?page=2#...

" >... Kielen avulla voimme jakaa ajatuksia toisten kanssa, mutta tokihan ensin
> pitää olla ajatuksia. Ajatus ei synny siten että omassa mielessä aletaan latoa
> sanoja peräkkäin; kyllä ajatus on ensin ja sitten vasta käännetään se sanalliseen >muotoon jos tarvitaan.

Juuri tässä kohdassa ns.kielelliset tajuntateoriat ovat eri mieltä. Niistä tunnetuimmat koulukunnat ovat L.S. Vygotskyn sekä tätä (mielestäni) heikompi Sapirin-Whorffin koulukunta. Tällainen idea aivoissa "materiaalisena" piilevästä ajatuksesta johtaa loogisesti kehiteltynä oudonlaisiin johtopäätöksiin, vaihtoehtoina ovat joko "ajatusai-ne" (esim. molekyylit,joihin on (geneettisesti) koodattu tietoa,yhdistyvät,tai solut, joi-hin on koodattu tietoa löytävät omin päin uuden yhteyden) tai sitten sieluteorioihin, että aivoissa olisi jotakin periaatteellisesti aineeelliseen maailmaan kuulumatonta.

Kielellisen ajatteluteorian mukaan ajattelu on toiminto:ajatus on reaalista, todellista vain kielellisessä muodostamisprosessissaan, vähän samaan tapaan kuin suunnista- jan nenänpään maastoon piirtämä viiva on reaalista vain juuri silloin kun suunnistaja sitä reittiään juoksee. Ellei tätä viivaa sitten ehdoin tahdoin realisoida eli objetivoida, merkitä muistiin esimerkiksi nenään kiinnitetyn signaalilähteen ja kolmen vastaanot-timen avulla, tai videoimalla juoksu. Me voimme kyllä mieltää tämän kieliperäisen ajattelun visuaalisena prosessina. Mutta jos me haluamme jotakin keksimäämme, juuri sitä *ajatusta*, muistaa, meidän on ehdoin tahdoin painettava tämä uusi mielikuva uudeksi muistijäljeksi alitajuntaamme, samaan tapaan kuin jostakin havainnostakin jää "tarpeelliseksi katsomamme" muistijälki.

Tämän sinun teoriasi mukaan ikäänkuin olisi jo ensin se *ajatus*,jonka sitten tietoi-suus ikään kuin uutena aistina "havainnoisi", ja vasta louksi pukisi sanoiksi. Taitaa olla Damasiota, joka myös liittyy jotenkin siihen Chomskyn-Pinkerin ketjuun.

Monimutkaista, monimutkaista, ja nostaa enemmän uusia kysymyksiä kuin vastaa vanhoihin. Jos *ajatellaan*,että muistijäljet olisivat yksittäisissä soluissa (luultavasti eivät ole), niin sinun teoriasi mukaan pitäisi olla kaapelit jo kytkettynä muistijälkien välillä, jotta niiden kohteiden mahdollista yhteyttä voitaisiin edes ajatella, tai aina- kaan pukea ajatusta sanoiksi, kun taas minun teoriani mukaan ajatukseen riittää vä-lähdykenmainen yhteys (jonka on muodostunut näiden muistijälkien liittyminen mui-hin yhteisiin ilmiöihin), ja tietoisuus samalla tsekkaa automaattisesti, onko näiden ilmiöiden keskinäisessä yhteydessä ainesta uudeksi muistijäljeksi. Ellei ole, koko ajatus häipyy minun mallissani,mutta sinun mallissasi ne väärätkin kytkennät taitavat edelleen jäädä johtamaan ajattelua vastakin harhaan (kun ne kerran olivat jo ennen ajatusta, niin miksei yhä sen jälkeenkin?).

Tämä on oikeastaan kielellisten kontra muiden ajatteluteorioiden peruskysymys. "

 Siitä nykyaikaisesta neurofysiologiasta tieteen viimeinen sana R. Douglas Fieldsiltä täällä:

http://nakokulma.net/index.php?topic=10081.0


PS2: ”Antistalinistista” tieteenväärennystä myös vuoden 1979 Sovjetskaja entsilopedijassa…

 

Tässä yhteydessä on valitettavasti todettava, että Mihail Georgijevitš Jaroševskin kir-joittamassa vuoden 1979 Sovjetskaja entsiklopedijan artikkelissa USA:n armeijan johtavasta psykologista Burrhus Skinneristä, esiintyy täysin väärää tietoa sekä refleksiteoriasta että sen historiasta NL:ssa, ja myös USA:ssa:


Skinner, Burrhus Frederic

Born Mar. 20, 1904, in Susquehanna, Pa. American psychologist; leader of  behaviorism.

From 1939,Skinner was a professor at the universities of Minnesota and Indiana and at Harvard. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. He opposed neobehaviorism (joka näyttäisi tarkoittavan G.A. Millerin "evoluutiopsykolo- gisia" “kognitiivisen kuorman teorioita”), believing that psychology should be limited to the description of the observable,regular connections between stimuli and respon- ses and the reinforcement of responses. Skinner proposed the concept of operant learning (from “operation”) according to which an organism acquires new responses because it reinforces them, and an external stimulus elicits a response only after such reinforcement.

Based on this theory, Skinner distinguished a special group of conditioned reflexes, operant reflexes, which he regarded as fundamentally different from the classical conditioned reflexes discovered by I. P. Pavlov. Experimental psychology has demonstrated the erroneous- ness of such a distinction.

(Operantit ehdolliset refleksit täsmälleen sama asia kuin Pavlovin, Beritašvilin ja Anatoli Ivanov-Smolenskin osoittamat  instrumentaaliset ehdolliset refleksit,joille myös Pavlovin symbolirakenteinen 2. signalointisysteemi perustuu, ja joiden luon- teesta varsinkin Ivanov-Smolenski ja Beritašvili olivat tuolloin jo tapelleet 20 vuotta, kun Skinner “keksi” ryhtyä  askartelemaan niiden parissa, minkä myös Jaroševski taatusti tiesi erittäin hyvin…)

Myös Beritashvili oli sitä mieltä ainakin aluksi, että klassisilla ja instrumentaalisilla ehdollisilla reflekseillä on eri koneisto. Ensin mainittujen koneistoksi hän esitti neuronien aksonien myelini-soitumisen aiheuttamaa sähkönjohtavuuden muutosta, ensimmäisenä maailmassa v.1932. Beritašvili osoitti olevan myös käänteisklassisia ehdollisia refleksejä, joissa alun perin ehdottoman refleksin reaktio-osa on vaihtunut alkuperäistä geneettistä hyödyllisemmäksi koettuun opittuun toimintoon.)

Skinner first studied operant behavior in animals, proposing a number of original methods and devices, including the Skinner box, in which the experimental animal receives reinforcement only after performing an operant, such as pressing a bar.

(Valhetta. Instrumentaalista ehdollistumista oli tutkittu eläimillä 20 vuotta NL:ssa mitä kekseliäimmillä laitteilla ja eri tutkimusmetodeilla, kun Skinner valloissa ryhtyi siinä suhteessa toimeen.)

Skinner proposed concepts of speech acquisition, psychotherapy, and education, based on the idea that the mechanisms of human and animal behavior are identical. “

(Joka on perin juurin väärä käsitys, vaikka aivot ovatkin huomattavan samanlaiset. Niitä käyte- tään eri tavalla. Ihmisen aivoja voi käyttää myös eläimen tavalla, mutta ei päinvastoin.)

“ He was the originator of programmed learning, his version of which is strongly mechanistic.

Drawing on operant behaviorism’s ideas about the control of human behavior, Skin- ner proposed Utopian plans for reconstructing society. His proposals evoked sharp criticism from progressive scientists in various countries, including the USA.

WORKS

The Behavior of Organisms. New York [1938].
Walden Two. New York, 1948.
Science and Human Behavior. New York [1953].
Verbal Behavior. New York [1957].
The Technology of Teaching. New York [1968].
Contingencies of Reinforcement. New York [1969].
Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York, 1971.
“Answers for My Critics.” In H. Wheeler, ed. Beyond the Punitive Society. San Francisco, 1973.

REFERENCES

Leont’ev, A.N., and P. Ia. Gal’perin. “Psikhologicheskie problemy programmirovan-nogo obucheniia.” In the collection Novye issledovaniia ν pedagogicheskikh naukakh. Moscow, 1965.
Tikhomirov, O. K. Struktura myslitel’noi deiatel’nosti cheloveka. Moscow, 1969.
Iaroshevskii, M.G. Psikhologiia v XX stoletii. Moscow, 1971.

M. G. IAROSHEVSKII [23–1504–]

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. “

(National Academy of Scinces of the USA ei  ole mikään USA:n virallinen ja varka-svatuullinen tiedeakatemia, jollaista USA:ssa ei ole lainkaan (kuten ei Suomessa-kaan), vaan yksityinen putiikki,joka on ottanut tuollaisen nimen. Virkavastuullisia val- tion käyttämästä tieteestä esimerkiksi politiikassa ovat Liittovaltion (National) erikois-tutkimuslaitokset, kuten Kansa(kunna)llinen Terveystutkimuslaitos NIH, Fieldsinkin ”kotiluola”.)

Venäläinen Wikipedia toteaa Jaroševskin ollen (hruštševilainen, mukamas ”antistali- nistinen”) tieteen painostaja ja väärentäjä. Hänen hyökkäyksensä kohteena oli erityisesti takaisinkyt-kennällisten systeemisten olioiden käsite, ja niitä koskeva matematiikkatiede kybernetiikka.

System -

a set of elements linked and related to one another and forming a definite unity or whole. In the mid-20th century, after a long historical evolution, the concept of sys-tem emerged as a key philosophical, methodological, and specialized scien-tific concept.In contemporary science and technology,the problems of studying and designing systems of various kinds are dealt with in the framework of the systems approach, general systems theory,various specialized systems theories, and in fields such as cybernetics, systems engineering, and systems analysis.

… “

” Ярошевский известен своим авторством статьи «Кибернетика - наука мрако-бесов»,которая часто упоминается в контексте идеологической кампании про- тив кибернетики в СССР. В качестве редактора и комментатора Ярошевский также принял участие в редактировании шеститомного собрания сочинений Выготского, в ходе которого были допущены грубейшие редакторские ошибки, цензурные вмешательства и явные фальсификации оригинального текста Выготского.

Автор книги про Выготского и ведущий специалист по так называемой истории "репрес-сированной науки": термин был введен Ярошевским для обозначения преследований ученых, цензуры научных текстов, фальсификации науки советского периода и искажения истории этой науки. ”

” Jaroševski tunnetaan artikkelin “Kybernetiikka, pimeäpirujen (mrakobes) tiede” tekijyydestä. (Termi lienee venäjän kielen kovimmasta päästä, sen rinnalla ´haista-paskantiede´ on löysää huorittelua…), joka usein esitetään ideologisen kampanjan yhteydessä kybernetiikkaa vastaan NL:ssa.(Pääsääntöisesti NL:ssa jumaloitiin kyber- netiikkaa…Oli kuitenkin myös kybernetiikan lipun alla dialektiikkaa vastaan hyökkää-viä ”lindforssilaisia”.) Toimittajan ja kommentaattorin ominaisuudessa Jaroševski otti osaa myös Vygotskin teosten kuusiosaisen laitoksen toimittamiseen, jossa tehtiin raskaita toimituksellisia virheitä,sensuuritoimia ja selviä Vygotskin alkuperäisen teks- tin väärennöksiä.(Vygotski oli NL:n johdon todellinen ideologi ihmiskuvan alalla: jotta voisi väärentää Stalinia, oli väärennettävä Vygotskia psyko-logiassa ja kielitieteessä, ja marxismissa yleensä.) Hän teki kirjan Vygotskista ja oli niin sanotun ”repressoidun tieteen historian” ”spesialisti”: tuon termin toi Jaroševski kehiin merkitsemään oppi-neiden vainoamista, tieteellisten tekstien sensuuria, neuvostotieteen falsifiointia ja sen historian vääritelyä. ”

Näin siis porvari-Venäjän Wiki: ei ole kauheasti ”tieteen antistalinismi” kunniassaan ainakaan kun se itse on läpikotaisesti väärässä!

 http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/FlatMessageIndex/366250?page=1...

Sovjetskajaan asti pääsi valitettavasti eräässä tietyssä raossa myös toinen Pavlovin vääritelijä, muuan löysää opettajan uraa tehnyt D.A.Birjukov, joka mm. väitti ”Pavlo- vin väittäneen synnynnäisten ehdottomien refleksien syntyvän evoluutiossa opituista ehdollisita”, mikä on puhdasta paskaa, vaikka hän ei väittänytkään niiden ”menevän Keeniin” fysiolologisesti, vaan nimenomaan tavallisessa evoluutiossa (jossa opitut mallit tosiassa SYRJÄYTTÄVÄT geneettisiä lainalaisesti).

 http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/FlatMessageIndex/340657?page=1...



Jatketaan Bernard Baarsin päästön ruotimista:


BB: “ By 1950 even the word ‘consciousness’ had disappeared from the textbooks (e.g., Woodworth & Schlossberg, 1954). “


SB: Mistähän neuvostoliittolaisista oppikirjoista tuo olisi kadonnut!!??

 

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotski


BB: “Today the taboo may be lifting.Terms like ‘conscious’ and ‘subjective’ are again in the scientific headlines (e.g.,Logothetis&Schall, 1989; Kreiman et al., 2002; Edel-man & Tononi, 2001). In rediscovering consciousness and volition, contemporary science is substantially in agreement with the long history of ideas,and opposed to the purge of the twentieth century.As we return to consciousness it will be important to understand the era of taboo and perhaps to rethink the history that was told to justify it. “


SB: Täysin räävitöntä vääristelyä,mitä tulee Pavloviin ja muuhun Neuvostoliiton psy- kologiaan ja neurofysiologiaan.Tuohon konkreettiseen behaviorismin haukkumiseen ja miten se vääris-telytunkio kaadetaan ehdottoman syyttömän Pavlovin niskaa, toisessa jutussa.

Siitä nykyaikaisesta neurofysiologiasta tieteen viimeinen sana R. Douglas Fieldsiltä täällä:

 http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/will



BB:

  1. The power of radical behaviourism


Most scientists after 1910 did not deny consciousness outright;it was a small but ex- traordinarily influential group of radical behaviou- rists and their philosophical cousins who did so.


B.F. Skinner indeed defined radical behaviourism as a philosophy that denies subjectivity.

It is possible to be a behaviourist and recognize the existence of conscious events. We may set up a distinction between a public and a private world, the first a com- municable one and the latter forever reserved from scientific treatment. But I prefer- red the position of radical behaviourism, in which the existence of subjective entities is denied (Skinner, 1979).

 As John B. Watson wrote in 1925:

... the time has come for psychology to discard all reference to consciousness... it is neither a definable nor a usable concept,it is merely another word for the “soul” of more ancient times ... No one has ever touched a soul or seen one in a test-tube. Consciousness is just as unprovable, as unapproachable as the old concept of the soul... the Behaviourist must exclude from his scientific vocabulary all subjective terms such as sensation, perception, image, desire, purpose,and even thinking and emotion as they were subjectively defined (p. 5).

Pavlov,Watson and Skinner were famous for decades,while moderates like Guthrie, Hull and Tolman were never known to a wider public.The radicals put others on the defensive by accusing traditional psychologists of being unscientific. More than a century of extraordinary scientific progress was branded as ‘introspectionist’ or ‘men-talistic’ in contrast to ‘respectable behaviourism’. Such public namecalling is unusual in science. E.G. Boring wrote that ‘... all along behaviourism has been seeking an enemy so that it could disprove the charge that it is fighting windmills, for it must fight something; it is a movement’ (1929, p. 120). “


SB: Pavlov varmasti oli metodologinen “anti-introspektionisti (joskin tuskin kiisti sel- laisen arvoa TAITEESSA),mutta häntä on ehdottoman vilpillistä yhdistää mihinkään ”antimentalismiin”, joka on terminäkin 2000-luvun alun lallatusta.


BB: “ Watson’s scientific purge of ‘sensation, perception, image, desire, purpose and even thinking and emotion’ was carried out with great thoroughness in Britain and the United States (Baars,1986). By mid-century, according to George A. Miller, ‘The power, the honours, the authority, the textbooks, the money, everything in psychology was owned by the behaviouristic school’ (Baars, 1986,  p. 203).

Other psychologists believed that the complete rejection of con- sciousness was too extreme to last (e.g., Boring, 1929; Hilgard, 1948). But time and again the rejectio-nist camp rose to greater prominence. In the upshot, a small minority purged psy-chology of its most central problems for most of the century. By keeping moderates on the defensive they made empirical progress nearly impossible.


  1. Pavlov set the pattern

 

Pavlov did not reject consciousness as completely as Watson and Skinner.


SB: Hän ei ylipäätään kiistänyt tajuntaa eikä tietoisuutta, eli tietoista tajuntaa, eikä myöskään alitajuntaa. Mutta hän ei pitänyt tajuntaa luonnontieteellisenä, vaan yh- teiskunnallisena ilmiönä, just kuten Vygotskikin, joka oli psykologiassa sitä, mitä Pavlov (ja Beritashvili) neurofysiolo-giassa.


BB: “ But he set the tone.Watson and Skinner emulated Pavlov’s public career with remarkable fidelity. Between 1900 and 1990 not a decade went by without one of the three radicals dominating the headlines. “


SB: Skinner ja Watson määräsivät itse pelinsä hengen. Molemmat olivat lisäksi USA:n armeijan johtavia psykologeja, joilta odotettiin esimerkiksi koulutustuloksia vaikka ilmavoimissa ja avaruusohjelmissa, jne. Heidän ensisijainen tehtävänsä ei ollut edistää tieteellisten keksintöjen saavuttamista psykologiassa tai muuallakaan. Heidän kaikkein tärkein tehtävänsä oli valvoa ja estää, ettei armeijassa tyritä raskaasti psykologiassa eikä psykitriassa.


BB: “ Utopian rejection of human consciousness was a fabulous career move.


It is a telling fact that the three celebrated radical behaviourists exercised their grea-test impact not in scientific journals but through the public media. The nine-teen-year-old B.F.Skinner rejected the subjective life after reading a popular book by Ber-trand Russell, who had high praise for John B.Watson; and it was Watson who first promoted Pavlov’s universal reflex explanation in the West (Watson, 1916; 1925; Russell, 1921; Skinner, 1976). “


SB: Valhetta: Pavlov oli julksaissut klassisita ehdollisista reflekseistä jo v. 1903, vuotta ennen kuin sai Nobelin palkinnon ruoansulatusnesteiden hermostollisesta (ref-lektorisesta) säätelystä, jossa yhteydessä hän kyllä tuli toteamaan taatusti tiedosta-mattomien opittujen ja toisaalta tiedostettujenkin opittujen kaavmaisten reagointi-mallien huomattvan samankaisuuden. Hän sai Nobelinsa osin tuonkin tutkimuksen ansiosta, vaikka ehdollisia refleksejä ei erikseen mainittukaan (tietääkseni) palkinnon perusteluissa.


BB: ”In contrast,scientific journals did not publish utopian promises,nor were they as damning about consciousness and volition. Peer-reviewed journals tended to resist unproven claims. Utopian promises and purges were promoted through popular me-dia because they made for spectacular headlines (e.g., Watson, 1925; 1927; 1928; 1929; Watson & MacDougall, 1929; Watson & Rayner,1928; Skinner, 1934; 1945; 1948; 1961; 1967; 1969; 1971).

Yet after decades of public fame,the radical behaviourists shaped even the journals, and their taboos pervaded the sciences and philosophy. Like the young Skinner, stu-dents decided to become revolutionary behaviourists because of the image projec-ted by the radicals. Behaviourism was the hard-rock music of psychology; it had all the attractions of simplicity,a radical and utopian stance,a total rejection of the dead past, and the grandiose promise of founding a world no one had seen before. The only problem was that all those claims required a purge of history.

Behaviourism needed to erase the past and create a new myth of origins. Pavlov was a founding hero of the new myth.Pavlov had an established scientific reputation long before he began to study conditional reflexes.He received a Nobel Prize for his surgical experiments on digestive secretions, which were reflexive. But Pavlov often used the term ‘reflex’ extravagantly and circu-larly, as shown by his story of the freedom reflex.


BB: “ There is of course no reflex of freedom, although it is easy to see resistance to coercion in animals and humans. “


SB: No johan putosi VARSINAINEN DOGMI,ja TAATUSTI VÄÄRÄ:totta helvetissä eri eläinlajeilla on vapausrefleksejä, jolla ne yrittävät päästä eroon “ylimääräisestä” emerkiksi turkissaan: mudasta, loisista, niiden liikkumista rajoittavista esteistä puhu- mattakaan.Hevonen katkaisee mielummin kiven koloon juuttuneen jalkansa riuhtoes- saan kuin jää petojen armoille ”tuleen makaamaan” sen irrottautumismahdollisuuk- sien siinä tapauksessa koko ajan heiketessä. Hevoset ja siat pyrkivät myös karkuun suljetuista aitauksista, vaikkei niiltä puuttuisi mitään niiden sisällä, jne. Ei maksa vai-vaa luetella kaikkien tuntemia esimerkkejä. Se on sivuseikka, onko noilla eläinlajien ehdottomilla reflekseillä varsinaisesti geneettisesti mitään yhteistä taustaa toistensa kanssa. Tuskinpa vaan kaukaisilla lajeilla.


BB: “Herding cats is nearly impossible,and it is equally hard to keep male dogs from sniffing females in heat.Wild horses resist taming, most animals cannot be domesti- cated at all. Human beings fiercely resist unwanted control. But struggling against coercion is not a reflex — it is nothing like a simple atom of behaviour. “


SB: Kyllä se on reflektorista toimintaa. Siitä ei ole minkäänlaista epäselvyyttä!


BB: “ Pavlov passionately fought that elementary point. And he constantly overinterpreted the very limited results he saw in the laboratory.


Pavlov went on to propose a ‘reflex of religion,’


SB: Ei taatusti esittänyt! Ei nimittäin YHTÄ REFLEKSIÄ! Mutta kielellisenä ilmiönä uskontokin tietysti rakentuu instrumentaalisesti eh- dollisreflektorisen 2. signalisointisysteemin varaan!



BB: “ an ‘investigatory reflex’ as shown by exploration and curiosity, a ‘self-defence’ reflex, “


Näissä taas ei ole mitään sen kummallisempaa kuin vapausrefleksissäkään!


MIKÄÄN GENEETTINEN VAPAUSREFLEKSI MUUTEN EI OLE TAHDON- EIKÄ AJATELUNVAPAUDEN EDELLYTYS, jos Baars sellaista haluaa väittää…


BB: “ and a ‘reflex of purpose’.


SB: Tarkoituksia on vain yhteiskunnassa. Ne sellaisenaan eivät ole refleksejä.


BB: “ ‘All life, all its improvements and progress, all its culture are effected through the reflex of purpose,are realized only by those who strive to put into life a purpose.‘ ...the comforts of life (the aim of practical people), right laws (aspired to by states-men), knowledge (the goal of educated people), discoveries (the treasures of scien-tists),virtues (the ideal of righteous people),etc’ (1927,ol.1,p.279).Even suicide could be explained: ‘the tragedy of the suicide lies in the fact that he has an inhibition, as we physiologists would call it, of the reflex of purpose . . . .’ (p. 279).


These explanations are circular,of course. People who pursued goals were said to show the reflex of purpose. If they were suicidal their reflex of purpose must have been inhibited. Thus everything could be explained post hoc, though the imputed reflex arc was never observed. It did not exist. “


SB: Tässä ei tosiaankaan ole kyseessä “yksi refleksi(kaari)”, vaan korkean systee-mitason ehdollisten refleksien toisessa signalointijärjestelmässä, eräs symbolira-kenteisista korkeimmista psyykkisistä toiminnoista!


BB: ” Why Pavlov’s circular argument is important


This point is not just relevant for understanding Pavlov. The identical gambit was used by Watson and Skinner. “


Erehdys:Watsonilla ja Skinnerillä voi olla “gambiitti”, samoin Jaroševskilla, KOSKA NÄMÄ KIISTIVÄT EHDOTTOMASTI erityiset SYSTEEMISET JA KYBERNEETTI- SET OLIOT JA ILMIÖT JA LAINALAISUUDET, mutta PAVLOVILLA EI OLLUT TÄSSÄ YLITSEKÄYMÄTTÖMIÄ ONGELMIA, koska hän ei tuollaisia dogmeja har- rastanut, ja NL:ssa tunnettiin jo 20-luvulla systeemiteorian ja takaisinsyötöllisten jär-jestelmien ja jopa kaaosteoria perusteita (Aleksandr Fridman).Lisäksi materialistinen dialektiikka auttoi oleman kompuroimatta tiedon ohimenevien rajoitusten lillukanvarsiin. (Jaroševskin ongelma oli se, ettei hän ymmärtänyt noista mitään.)


BB: “ Skinner’s unit of behaviour was not the reflex but ‘stimulus–response conditioning’. “    


SB: Juuri sellainen refleksi onkin!

 

Reflex

a response of an organism mediated by the central nervous system after stimulation of receptors by internal or external environmental agents (stimuli); it is manifested by the occurrence of or change in the functional activity of individual organs or the body as a whole. … “

(Tuo on vähän huonosti sanottu: ärsyke ja reaktio uhdessä muodostavat refleksin. (Pelkälle reaktiolle ärsyk- keeseen ei tarvita kahta sanaa.)


BB: “ Yet the tactic of post-hoc explanation was the same. Pavlov claimed that conditional reflexes occurred in the brain, which he could not observe. “


Kyllä hän tiesi paljon tarkemminkin:että ehdolliset refleksit tapahtuvat aivokuorella ja välittömästi sen alapuolella olevassa ns. valkoisessa aineessa. Se on nykyään kaikin puolin vahvistettu, mikä on pääasia.


“ Skinner claimed that S–R connections must have occurred in the ‘history of the organism’, which he could not observe either.Thus neither Pavlov nor Skinner had direct evidence for their universal claims.“


Tieteessä kelpaavat myös välilliset todisteet. teorianmuodostukses- sa joudutaan aina olettamaan toistaiseksi havaitsemattomia ja joskus myös TOISTAISEKSI HA- VAITSEMTTOMISSA olevia seikkoja ja aksioomia. ´Aksiooma´ onkin määritelmälli- sesti juuri tuollainen otaksuma. Sitä testataan välillisesti kokeellisesti.


“ They simply overgeneralized from limited laboratory results, a plain violation of accepted scientific practice. “


Väärä tieto: sellainen aksiooma, joka kieltää aksioomat, ei ole nykyaikaisen tieteelli- sen aksiomaattis-deduktiivisen menetelmän mukai- nen, vaan sellaisella vaatimuksella käytännössä MIKÄÄN teoria ei olisi kelvollinen.


http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2012/06/induktio-ja-deduktio-emp...


BB: ”

  1. Sliding definitions


It is crucial to understand that Pavlov used the word ‘reflex’ with constantly sliding meanings. “ 


SB: Niitä on monenlaisia, ja niiden varaan rakentuu systeemisesti ja emergentisti uusia ilmiöitä. Tämän pavlov tiesi oikein hyvin.


BB: “  Physiologically, a reflex is a fixed reaction that is evoked by a specific neuronal arc, like the knee-jerk reflex. “


Ehdoton refleksi on “kiinteä” (fixed), mutta ehdollinen kehittyy koko ajan, myös sen refleksikaari. Ehdottomatkin kehittyvät jonkin varaan ja vieläpä samalla Fieldsin me-kanismilla kuin ehdollisetkin, mutta niillä on gennettinen ”aihio”,eivätkä ne häviä pel- kän ”käytön” (tai käyttämättömyyden) perusteella koskaan olemattomiin, mikä taas voi määritelmällisesti tapahtua ehdollisille reflekseille (vaikka niiden synnyssä olisi jotakin geneettistäkin).


SB: “ Such reflexes are clearly defined because the anatomy and physiology can be seen. “


Näitä ei voi periaatteessakaan nähdä muutoin kuin toiminnassa.


SB: “ But simple reflex arcs are small in number,and many of them can be isolated only when the cerebral cortex is removed (Sherrington, 1906/1947). A second mea- ning of ‘reflex’ is anything that can be causally elicited, like salivation at the sight of food. In that case the brain basis was partly inferred, without direct neural evidence. Pavlov’s third and most general meaning of ‘reflex’ was ‘everything the brain does’, including conscious and purposeful acts. Consciousness and volition depend upon the cerebral cortex, which has a completely different anatomy and physiology from the spinal cord (e.g., Sherrington 1906/1947;Lashley,1930; Edelman&Tononi,2001).


Pavlov constantly slides from one meaning to the next, to uphold the illusion that they are all the same. They are not. “


SB: Kunhan täyttävät perustuntomerkit, ne ovat.


BB: “ To say that reflexes are essential to bodily action is much like saying that wheels are essential to auto- mobiles. The statement is true as far as it goes,but it leaves out the engine,the driver, the gears and everything else that makes the wheels move. “


SB: Ärsykkeet saavt liikkumaan, ja ärsykkeet ovat refleksien osia.


BB: “Pavlov’s universal reflex explanation is much like saying that cars need nothing but wheels; or perhaps that everything - including the driver - is just another wheel.


As George A. Miller wrote, ‘Pavlov would never concede that his physiological inter-pretation was merely an elaborate figure of speech’ (1962). The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy speaks of his ‘subjective intuitions clothed in pseudophysiological vocabulary’ (Edwards,1967, V). “


SB: Pitää paikkansa, ettei refleksologian terminologia ole pelkästään fysiologista. Refleksi ei ole sama asia kuin sen fysiologinen perusta, jollainen aina kuitenkin on.


BB: “ Sir Charles Sherrington,one of the foremost physiologists of the time, repor- tedly remarked that ‘His observations are the most brilliant but his deductions leave me cold’. 3 It speaks volumes that Sherrington’s classic work on reflex physiology only cites Pavlov once among 314 scientific sources (1906/1947). “


SB: Pavlov mainitsee sanan “neuroni” (josta nyt avian erityisesti lienee Baarsilla ky-symys…) teoksessa ”Ehdolliset refleksit” yhden (1) ainoan kerran. Silti hän kirjoittaa aika tavalla mm.refleksi(kaart)en sijainnista aivoissa eri refleksityypeillä. Hän olikin selvillä Fridtjof Nansenin hypoteesista, joka perustui evoluutiolle, että glia-solut ovat aivojen todellinen aktiivitoimija.


“ Yet it was Pavlov’s ‘deductions’ that made him famous, “


Pitää paikkansa.


“ and which convinced entire disciplines that consciousness must be dropped from science. “


MITÄÄN SELLAISTA PAVLOV EI TEHNYT!

 

Kaikenlaiset syytteet tuossa suhteessa pitää kohdistaa Watsoniin, Skinne- riin ja antipavlovisteihin eli ”evoluutiopsykologeihin”!


BB. “  How did it happen? “


II: Pavlov and the Russian Predicament


Pavlov was a man of great personal integrity,and there is no reason to doubt that he believed his own utopian dreams.He took serious personal risks in criticizing the Tsarist regime before the Revolution and Soviet authorities afterwards. He is said to have written to Stalin in 1927, ‘On account of what you are doing to the Russian in- telligentsia - demoralizing, annihilating, depraving them - I am ashamed to be called a Russian!’ (Basgen & Blunden, 1999–2000). A less useful figure would surely have ended up in Siberia for those words.


Born in 1849, he was already in his seventies during the Bolshevik revolution. At times he seemed sunk in Dosto-ievskian gloom. Pavlov’s anguish over the fate of Russia was life-long and real. As a son of a poor priest from the peasant class he was obsessed by the fate of his people. By 1900 the Romanoff imperial dynasty had been in power for four centuries without fundamental political change. Only in 1861 were Russia’s peasants legally released from slavery. Hopeful signs of libera-lization were reversed after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, on the very eve of the signing of the first Russian Constitution. As a result,the Constitution never went into effect and the system continued unreformed. The thinking of the peasants and the regime before the Revolution were still governed by the ancient Russian Orthodox Church. These events no doubt marked Pavlov.


[3] Cited by Gantt, p. 24, from John F. Fulton (1940) Bull of Inst of Hist and Med, pp. 332–54.


[4] Some would argue that Watson’s behaviourism was only an American phenomenon.


That is true to the extent that academic psychology largely switched from Germany to the US shortly after 1900,because Europe had the catastrophe of World War I fol-lowed by the Great Depression, and could not support a costly new academic field. Institutional conservatism at European universities also kept chairs of psychology from being established for decades.Thus the professionalization of psychology shif-ted from Germany to the US at just the time behaviourism took over. Nonetheless, British analytic philosophy was for all intents and purposes equivalent to behaviourism, as Skinner long maintained.


This philosophy dominated English-speaking countries for decades.In biology,Pavlov and reductionists like Jacques Loeb had a similar impact. Behaviourism of one kind or another therefore made a clean sweep: philosophy, psychology, and physiology all rejected consciousness,at least in English-speaking countries and the USSR. “


SB: Puhdasta paskaa marxismi-leninismiä koskien! SE EI TODEL-LAKAAN ”KIISTÄ TAJUNTAA EIKÄ TIETOISUUTTA”, eikä yksi- kään se perustajista ole niin tehnyt!


BB: “ Only the intelligentsia in Moscow and St.Petersburg were able to escape the  pervasive medieval tyranny, and they were divided by various degrees of radicalism and despair. Under these dreadful con- ditions Pavlov believed that only science offered hope.


When the negative features of the Russian character - laziness, lack of enterprise, and even slovenly relations to every work - provoke melancholy moods, I say to my- self, No,these are not our real qualities,they are only the damning inheritance of sla- very... it left the reflex of purpose without any exercise in the fundamental habits of living (1927, Vol. 1, p. 280). “


SB: Jos Pavlov on tuossa yhteydessä käyttänyt tuota sanaa, se on muualla kuin kuin tieteellisen teorianmuodostuksen yhteydessä, eikä sen merkitystä ole edes tarkoitettu tiukan tieteelliseksi.


BB: " If all human action could be viewed in light of physiological reflexes, he believed, further scientific study would surely lay the foun- dation for a technology of social progress:

Only science, exact science about human nature itself, and the most sincere approach to it by the aid of the omnipotent scientific method, will deliver Man from his present gloom, and will purge him from his contemporary shame in the sphere of inter-human relationships (1927, Vol. 1, p. 41).

Significantly, Pavlov’s lecture on ‘The Reflex of Freedom’ was read in May of 1917, a time when the old regime was finally crumbling. Only a month before, in April, V.I. Lenin had arrived in Moscow, ready to seize power.


  1. What Pavlov was looking for?


Pavlov and his admirers saw his work in terms of the long struggle between science and religion.

To many intellectuals science had been the key to Progress ever since the Renais-sance, while established religion seemed to support an oppressive status quo. The history of science was seen as a series of ground-breaking discoveries memorialized by names like Galileo, Newton and Darwin.

To his admirers, Pavlov was one more hero in the series. He was ‘the Pasteur of the human brain and heart’ as Paul de Kruif wrote (quo- ted by Gantt, 1927,p.20). The trouble is, of course, that science can become just as dogmatic and closed-minded as any religion, espe- cially if it goes far beyond the evidence.

One long philosophical battle concerned vitalism, the idea that living things cannot be reduced to chemicals because they had a spiritual life force, an élan vital. Many partisans of science viewed vitalism as the great enemy.According to Miller,

In Germany, the science of physiology was controlled by four men: Hermann Lud- wig von Helmholtz, Emil Du Bois-Reymond, Ernst Brücke, and Carl Ludwig. These men formed a private club in Berlin whose members were pledged to destroy vita- lism. ... And it was in this intellectual atmosphere that the pioneer psychologists were educated.Freud was Brücke‘s student; Pavlov studied under Ludwig; Wundt was Du Bois-Reymond’s student and Helmholtz’ assistant. With physiology reduced to chemistry and physics, the next step was to reduce psychology to physiology (1962, pp. 193–4).

In Britain,Thomas Henry Huxley extended this mechanistic approach to conscious- ness. He wrote:

Consciousness ... would appear to be related to the mechanism of the body... simp- ly as a [side] product of its working,and to be completely without any power of modi-fying that working, as the [sound of] a steam whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive... is without influence upon its machinery (quoted in James, 1890/ 1983).

Thus, the partisans of scientism rejected any basic difference between living orga- nisms and chemistry; they sometimes considered consciousness an irrelevant by- product of the brain;and they wanted to reduce human voluntary purpose to mecha- nistic causality. Volitional purpose posed a paradox, according to vitalists, because it seemed to reverse physical causality: Instead of an earlier event causing a later one, a future end seemed to cause present actions.

 Pavlov’s claims therefore had a kind of inevitability to partisans of scientism. It was just what they were looking for. As he wrote:

 Our starting point has been Descartes’ idea of the nervous reflex. This is a genuine scientific conception,since it implies necessity ...a stimulus appears to be connected of necessity with a definite response, as cause with effect (1927, Vol. 1).

Pavlov often marvelled at the ‘machine-like’ nature of reflexes.But how was he to re- late simple reflexes to all brain activities, including the great cerebral hemispheres? Here he had a notable predecessor.

A bold attempt to apply the idea of the reflex to the activities of the hemispheres was made by the Russian physiologist,I.M. Sechenov ... he attempted to represent the activities of the cerebral hemispheres as reflex - that is to say, as determined. Thoughts he regarded as reflexes in which the effector path was inhibited, while great outbursts of passion he regarded as exaggerated reflexes with a wide irradia- tion of excitation (p. 156). “


SB: Artkkeli Setšenovista näyttää perustuvan vahvasti Jaroševskin lähteeseen vuo- delta 1968, joten sen luotettavuus ei välttämättä ole kaikkein paras mahdollinen. Setšenov oli ensimmäinen, joka todella kehitti refleksin käsitettä eteenpäin Descar- tesin jälkeen kokeellisesti vahvis-tetulla,kumuloituvalla tavalla. Oppimisen pohjailmi-öistä, mm. että neuronit vai glia-solut todella ohjaavat ja mm. evoluutiossa kehitty- vät tapeltiin erikseen. Sechenov ja Pavlov tunsivat molemmat riidat, ja ilmeisestikin suosittelivat Fidtjof Nansenin Venäjän ulkomaiseksi eläintieteen kunnia-akateemi- koksi (joka oli korkeampi arvo kuin kummallakaan suosittelijalla) tämän limanahki- aisen hermostoa koskevan väitöskirjan perusteella, jota muualla maailmassa pidet- tiin ”alityöllistetyn museokonservaattorin puuhasteluna”…


BB: Pavlov had great admiration for Sechenov. In 1913 he proposed an ovation:

Exactly half a century ago, in 1863, was published in Russian the article ‘Reflexes of the Brain’,which presented in clear,precise, and charming form the fundamental idea which we have worked out at the present time. After the birth of this idea, it grew and ripened,until in our time it has become an immense force for directing the contemporary investigation of the brain. Allow me at this fiftieth anniversary of the ‘Reflexes of the Brain’ to invite your attention to the author, Ivan M. Sechenov, the pride of Russian thought and the father of Russian physiology! (1927,Vol.I., p. 222).

This is the key to Pavlov’s thinking:a lifelong commitment to the idea that all human brain activity was made up of reflexes in simple, causal chains. His experiments were confidently designed to work out this claim in detail. “


SB: Aivan oikein kiteytetty: juuri tämä on sekä Pavlovin että Setšenovin idea. 

Pavlov jakoi nuo refleksit opittuihin, määritelmällisesti poisopittavissa oleviin ehdolli- siin, ja geneettisiin ehdottomiin reflekseihin. Hän hyväksyi  refleksien varaan raken- tuvat systeemiset muodostelmat kuten eläinten vaistot ja ihmisen tajunnan ja auto- matisoituneet toiminnot, ajattelun, tunteet, tahdon, tietoisen ja tiedostamattoman tarkkaavaisuuden

Se, mitä Baars yrittää väittää, on että Pavlovkin olisi ollut samaa mieltä kuin Jaro- ševski, että nuo jälkimmäiset olisivat ”pimeäpiru- jen houruja”…

 http://aamulehdenblogit.ning.com/profiles/blogs/antipavlovistinen-s...



Bernard Baars: ”

  1. What Pavlov found

Humans and other animals learn many things,but innate reflexes could only explain built-in behaviours like salivation and leg extension.Pavlov therefore needed to show that reflexes could be associated with new stimuli.That is why the ‘conditional reflex’ was so important. In the laboratory Pavlov showed how dogs could learn to salivate in anticipation of meat powder, given an arbitrary signal like a bell. Dilute acid in a dog’s mouth would also evoke salivation,and after mixing India ink into the acid so-lution, just the sight of the dark liquid elicited salivation.Thus,salivation could appa-rently be evoked by an arbitrary sight or sound. Since seeing and hearing required the cerebral hemispheres, this meant that the ‘higher centres’ of the cerebral cortex were involved in reflex association. For decades, with the help of a large work force, Pavlov worked out all the details of this experimental paradigm. “

SB: Pavlov ja Anatoli Ivanov-Smolenski osoittivat myös instrumentaalisten ehdol-listen refleksien olemassaolon,joissa sekä ärsyke että reaktio ovat opittuja ja joita Skinner sitten nimitti ”operandisiksi” ehdolllisiksi reflekseiksi,tasan samaa asiaa. Edelleen Beritašvili osoitti olevan käänteisklassisia ehdollisia refleksejä, joissa on geneettinen ärsyke, mutta reaktio on vaihdettu opittuun.


BB: ” Any pet owner knows that one need only walk to the pantry at feeding time to evoke eager anticipatory activities in hungry dogs or cats. Yet in nature animals do not look for food in kitchens.Cans of pet food have no biological relationship to hun- ting, killing and eating. They involve learned expectations. This is the essence of Pavlov’s famous experiment, something one can see by watching a poodle lick its chops many seconds before tasting dog chow. In that sense George Bernard Shaw was right - any policeman can tell you that much about a dog. “


SB: Pavlov ei ollut “koiratutkija”, vaan hän käytti monia koe-eläimiä ihmisistä meri- etanoihin (joiden oppimisjärjes-telmällä hän ei katsonut olevan mitään yhteistä ihmisen tai koiran vastaavan kanssa).


BB: “ Today,brain imaging during Pavlovian learning shows massive neuron popula- tions recruited by the task of associating stimuli,nothing remotely like a two-neuron spinal arc (e.g.,Hugdahl,1998).It seems that the simple laws Pavlov claimed to find were the result of a complex brain - perhaps 10 billion neurons in the dog - confron- ted with the most confining environmental demands. The simplicity Pavlov thought was in the brain resulted from manipulations so reductive that animals could learn only reflex associations. Humans thus confined might behave just as simply. “


SB: Tuo “päättely” pitää ainoastaan ja vain, jos systeemiset, kaoot- tiset jne. ilmiöt ovat “vain pimeäpirujen houruaja”


BB: ” Pavlov’s experimental work was standard incremental science. “


SB:  Pavlovin 2. signalointisysteemi oli kuitenkin dialektinen laadullinen hyppäys eteenpäin!


BB: ” It was useful over the longer term for mapping out animal sensory capacities, for example. But it is his uni- versal claims beyond the laboratory that are our concern here.


  1. An untested generalization


Pavlov never tested reflex learning outside the laboratory. “


SB: Ei niitä oikein laboratorion ulkopuolella voikaan testata, koska konkreettisia är- sykkeitä on muualla mahdotonta tietää tarkasti. Beritašvili kuitenkin tutki pääasias- sa vapaasti liikkuvilla eläimillä,mm.labyrinteilla,mutta sekin tapahtui laboratoriossa.


BB: “ But it is an elementary point of scientific method that experiments can never be generalized without extensive testing under natural conditions. “


SB: Yhteiskunta ei ole “luonto”.Ei olennaista merkitystä ainakaan ihmisen korkeim- pia psyykkisiä toimintoja tutkittaessa. Niiden tutkiminen ”luonnonilmiöinä” ”kokeel-lisesti” on pain vastoin paha metodo-loginen virhe!


BB: “ That is why physics has long used astronomical observations to test theory. ”


SB: Psykologia ei ole fysiikkaa.


BB: “Biology was largely observational for centuries,as in Darwin’s epochal voyage on HMS Beagle.Darwin never conducted a single experiment on his voyage;he only observed nature. In the case of ref- lexes it took half a century for behaviourists to admit that in the real world, reflex association did not work as advertised (e.g., Garcia & Koelling, 1966; Breland&Breland, 1961). “


SB: Täyttä puuta heinää. Labrassa voidaan matkia lähes mitä vaan luonnon (muuta EI yhteiskunnan!) ilmiötä me- nestyksellisesti. Jos ei behavioristien labrakokeet päteneet yhteiskun-nassa, menetelmää oli vain yritetty soveltaa vääränlaiseen tutkimuskohteeseen.


BB: “ The universal claims Pavlov made were simply untested when they were most celebrated. “


SB: Kissan paskat olleet!


BB: “ Reflex explanation became a closed belief system as fixed as any theological dogma. “


BS: Kieltämättä se on aksiooma, mutta julkinen tutkittavissa ja testattavissa oleva kokeiden laajasti todeksi vahvistama aksiooma.


BB: ” Everything could be explained post hoc,and no premise could be questioned. Questions about consciousness and volition were simply excluded as unscientific, ex hypothesi. “


SB: Eläimillä kyllä, ihmisillä ei.


 BB: ” One could state it in a few sentences:

Premise a: All innate behaviour is a reflex, a point-to-point causal connection between a stereotyped stimulus and a built-in response. “


SB: Nämä ovat sitten ehdottomat refleksit.


BB: “ Premise b:All learned behaviour involves new connections between arbitrary physical signals and innate reflexes. “


SB: No kun EI!  ´Refleksi´ on sekä ärsyke, että reaktio (toista ei ole biologiassa olemassa ilman toita)! 

Jotta REFLEKSI olisi synnynnäinen, on molempien oltava synnynnäisiä!

(Homma menee pelkäksi verbaaliseksi sekoittamiseksi, jossa lukijoita, omia "hyödyllisiä idiootteja" erityisesti, pidetään ääliöinä…)

Jos ainakin jompi kumpi noista on ehdollinen, on koko refleksi ehdollinen.

 

BB: “ Conclusion: All observable activities can be explained from premises a and b. “


SB: Suorittamani korjaus ja psyykkisten ilmiöiden systeemisyys huomioon ottaen kyllä.


BB: “ It only remained for Skinner to add a third:

Premise c: All novel responses must have been selectively reinforced in the past. (Skinner, 1957) “

Mitähän tuossa sitten uutta, ellei se, että Skinner pyrki usein selittämään ehdottomatskin refleksit ehdollisiksi…


BB: “ In this view, Pavlovian learning was stimulus–stimulus (S–S) association, and the Skinnerian kind was sti- mulus – response (S–R) association. “


SB: Näin ei ole asian laita: tuo on yksittäisten klassisten ja yksittäisten instru-mentaalisten/ operandisten ehdollisten refleksien ero, ei millään muotoa ”pavlovilaisten ja skinneriläisten”.


BB: ” This exhausted all forms of learning.Skinner further denied the need for phy- siological evidence,ensuring that his claims could not be falsified by brain findings. Both Skinner and Pavlov avoided real-world observation, so that no one could test whether their claims held true in nature. “


SB: Laboratoriokokeet ovat nimenomaan luonnon todellisuuden tutki-musta. Niissä tosi on eräitä ongelmia myös biotieteissä,ei pelkästään yhteiskuntatieteissä.


BB: “ Yet they did not hesitate to claim universal truth.They both founded a cottage industry of experimentation, which made incremental findings and finally, after half a century and more, overthrew the fundamental assumptions of the founders. “


SB: Täysin väärä “tieto”, että nykyaikainen tiede olisi Pavlovin refleksi- ja nimen- omaan ehdollisten refleksien teoriaa “hylännyt”, kaikkea muuta! Juuri sitä etum- mainen neurofysiologia nyt tutkii konkreettiselta mekanismikannalta, kuten tässä R. Douglas Fields:


Tieteellinen vallankumous neurofysiologiassa


Sitä on neurofysiologi R. Douglas Fiedsin teos ”The Other Brain: From Dementia to Schizophrenia, How New Discoverie...”.

Tämän otsikon nähdessään moni varmaan kysyy, että ”onko siis MYÖS PSYKO-LOGIASSA tapahtunut tieteellinen vallankumous? Oikea vastaus tähän on, EI OLE: Fieldsin mullistava teos osoittaa nimenomaan ehdollistumisen neurofysiologisen biokemiallis-fysikaalisen toimintamekanismin, jolle psykologian jo pian sata vuotta vallinnut Pavlovin-Vygotskin, ja nyt siis myös Fieldsin TIETEELLINEN IHMISKUVA rakentuu. Fields itse toteaa tästä sivulla 296 seuraavaa:

” On perussääntö, joka on saanut alkunsa Pavlovin kokeista koirilla, jotka saatiin erittämään sylkeä ruokakellon soitolla,että ”neuronit, jotka syttyvät (fire) yhtä aikaa, kaapeloituvat (wire) yhteen”.Pavlov pystyi kaapeloimaan ääneen reagoivia neuronei- ta yhteen syljen eritystä stimuloivien neuronien kanssa tarjoamalla koiralle ruokaa samanaikaisesti ruokakellon soiton kanssa. Kun nämä toistuvasti yhtä aikaa aktivoi- tuneet neuronit olivat kaapeloituneet yhteen, Pavlov sai koiransa erittämään sylkeä ilman mitään ruokaa vain kelloa soittamalla.Oppimisen soluperustasta kiinnostuneet neurotieteilijät ovat intensiivisesti tutkineet neuroneja yhteen kaapeloivia molekyyli-mekanismeja enimmäkseen synapseissa, mutta he ovat täydellisesti sivuuttaneet erään peruskysymyksen:Mikä määrää sen, kytkeytyvätkö neuronit yhteen vai eivät?

Ajastus (timing) on kaikki.Informaatiovirran ajastuksen koordinoiminen on absoluut- tisen kriittinen minkä tahansa kommunikaatioverkoston toiminnan kannalta. ...Aivot eivät tee poikkeusta. ... Emme ymmärrä, miten informaatiovirtaa aksonien läpi sää- dellään,jotta saadaan aikaan tarvittavan informaation yhtäaikainen saapuminen tiet- tyyn neuroniin. Ehdottoman selvää kuitenkin on, että tällaisen tarkan ajoituksen ai-kaansaaminen on absoluuttisen olennaista aivoille,jotta ne voisivat toimia. Loogises- ti meidän siis tulee kääntää huomiomme niihin soluihin,jotka säätelevät impulssien johtumisnopeutta aksoneita pitkin: myelinisoiviin gliasoluihin. ”

Tässä on kyse ehdollisten refleksien refleksikaarten muodostumisesta,jotka Pavlovin mukaan ovat ehdollisten refleksien olemassolomuoto aivokuorella ja välittömästi sen alapuolella eli ns.valkeassa aineessa. Oligodendrosyytti-gliasolujen muodostama ak-sonien myeliinituppi nostaa parhaimmillaan niiden signaalinjohtavuuden 100-kertai-seksi myelisoitumattomaan verrattuna. Toisenlaiset gliasolut (astrosyytit) säätelevät pitkälle myös synapsien signaalinvälitystä.

Fields ja ”sosiobiologia”

Fields (sivu 297, jatkoa alun lainaukseen hänen ja Pavlovin teorioiden suhteesta):

”Synapsin tuottama jännitteen muutos on on äärimmäisen lyhytaikainen: vain muu- tama sekunnin tuhannesosa. Tämä nopeus vaatii impulssien saapumisaikojen erit- täin korkeaa täsmällisyyttä (eri neuronien aksoneilta tietylle neuronille, jotta tapah- tuisi sen varauksenpurku (firing) ja signaali näin etenisi kyseistä reittiä). Voiko olla mahdollista, että signaalin johtumisen optimaalinen nopeus aksonien läpi muodos- tuisi täysin geneettisen kaavan mukaan aivojen kehityksessä jokaisella aksonilla päässäsi? Vai onko mahdollista, että johtumisen nopeutta sääntelee toiminnallinen kokemus optimoidakseen piirin toimintakyvyn?

Ottaen huomioon kaikki tekijät, jotka vaikuttavat johtumisen viivytyksiin huomatta- van kaukana toisistaan olevien neuronien välillä,yli aivokurkiaisen, joka yhdistää aivopuoliskojamme esimerkiksi, näyttää uskomattomalta, että vain genetiikka voisi ottaa huomioon kaikki muuttujat.

Tekijöihin,joitka vaikuttavat impulssin läpikulkuaikaan aksonissa,kuuluvat se nimen- omainen reitti, jota pitkin aksonin kasvukärki on kulkenut kasvaessaan alkionkehi- tyksen aikana, aksonin poikkipintaala, Ranvierin solmujen sen pituutuudelle muo- dostavien gliasolujen määrä, myeliinitupen paksuus, hermoimpulssin muodostami- sesta vastaavien ionikanavien tyyppi ja määrä ja monet muut.

Paljon todennäköisempi mahdollisuus aksonikaapeloinnin nopeuden sovittamiseksi kunkin aivo(virta)piirin (circuit) vaatimuksiin sopivaksi on, että johtumisnopeuden säätää jotenkin toiminnallinen kokemus. ”


Fieldsin kirjassa ei ole tavuakaan ”peilisoluista”, ”kielielimestä”, ”kieli-geenistä”, ”evoluutiopsykologiasta”, ”sosiobiologiasta”,”neurotaloustieteestä”, ”synnynnäisestä tiedosta”, "DNA:sta tajunnan koodina","aivokaapelitelepatista" eikä muistakaan ns. ”eurotieteen” lallatuksista... ”


BB: “ It is simply not true that all learning involves reflex association. Most learning does not. For example:perceptual learning, pattern learning, serial order learning, short-term memory, language learning, paired associate learning, explicit and impli- cit learning, episodic and semantic learning, sensorimotor learning, most cognitive, emotional and social development, problem-solving, skill learning, and ‘operant conditioning’ of voluntary actions. Not even classical memory association can be explained by reflexes. “    


SB: Jos on itse tyhmä ja tietämätön niin,ettei osaaselittää, sitä ei pidä käyttää “argumenttina” sille,että KUKAAN EI OSAISI!

Ehdollistumisen perustana on todistettu olevan Hebbin laki


BB: “ From Aristotle to Locke, memory was viewed as the association of ideas, a completely different concept than association of stimuli and responses. As a result, modern textbooks on human learning rarely refer to Pavlovian conditioning. “


SB: Se todistaa vain, että ne irjat ovat paskaa.


BB: “ Pavlov’s term ‘reflex’ settled mind-body arguments by fiat.If one applied it to curiosity, purpose,pain,hunger, religion, the struggle for freedom and the like, one meant that these were no more than physical events. “


SB: Näin ei ole asia. “Fysikalismi” ja reflekioppi eivät kuulu millään erityisellä tavalla yhteen: kaikki kombinaatiot ovat mahdollisia.


BB: “ Indeed, it may be that reflex reduction was attractive precisely because it abolished mind–body debates. Philosophical arguments were simply put aside. “


SB: Ei millään muotoa.


BB:“But there was a cost:One had to purge the entire vocabulary of common sense. All the ‘mentalistic’ words of natural language were declared to be unscientific. “


SB: Siis suomeksi epäLUONNONtieteellisiä.

Yhteiskuntatieteiden tutkimat ilmiöt ovat myös tieteellisiä,ja todellisia. kaikki refleksit ovat kuitenkin ELÄIMILLÄ täysin biologisia.

”Mentalismi” ja rityisesti ”antimentalismi” ovat 2000-luvulla tiskiin iskettyjä olkiukkoja. Tietosanakirjat löytävät lähinnä parapsykologisia esiintymisiä ”käsitteelle”.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mentalism


BB: ” Of the 100000 words understood by educated speakers of English,some two- thirds are mentalistic; they are the words we use in daily life to describe ourselves and others (Baars, 2003a). These psychological words evolved over centuries, begin-ning with ancient Greek and Latin:Words like ‘idea’, ‘image’, ‘concept’, ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘emotion’. Behaviourists claimed that all scientifically usable concepts could be translated into external stimuli and responses, an assumption that was not generally rejected until the end of the twentieth century (Baars, 1986). “


SB:Menee täydellisesti ohi Pavlovin, Vygotskin ja Fiedsin. Sitä paitsi keskeinen ongelma oli,miten aistihavainnot ja kokemukset menevät muistoiksi ja reflekseiksi, ja siinä yhteydessä behavioristi Donald O. Hebb esitti Hebbin lakinsa neuronien samanaikaisen varauksenpurun aiheuttamasta yhteenkytkeytymis(aste)en lisääntymisestä niiden välillä:

http://www.stellarleadership.com/docs/Approach%20to%20Learning/arti...


BB: ”  In fact, as Skinner pointed out, behaviourists merely adopted a philosophy — physicalistic reductionism. “


Marxistit eivät sitä omaksuneet, eivätkä omaksu ”fysikalistista” monadologiaa:

http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2011/08/fysikalismin-ideologia-o...


BB: “ Skinner often noted that ‘Behaviourism is not the science of man, it is the phi-losophy of that science’ (1974,p.3). Yet many beha- viourists attributed their convic-tions to experimental findings - just as Pavlov attributed the ‘freedom reflex’ to expe-rimental observations. In fact, his putative discoveries were inspired by his long-standing philosophical commitments.

“ Pavlov obviously thought it worthwhile to sacrifice consciousness and volition for a promise of human perfectibility. Not everyone agreed. “


SB: Täydellisen väärä todistus PAVLOVISTA, joka selitti nuo molem- mat AIVAN OIKEIN toisella signalisointisysteemillään! (sikäli kuin häenen ajattelussaan on todellisia ongelmia, ne sisältyvät siihen ”ensimmäiseen”  eivätkä toiseen signalisointisysteemiin).


Second Signaling System

a qualitatively unique form of higher nervous activity peculiar to man; a system of speech signals (pronounceable, audible, and visible). This concept was set forth by I.P.Pavlov (1932) to define the fundamental differences in brain function bet- ween animals and man. The animal brain reacts only to direct visual, acoustic, and other stimuli or their traces, and the resulting sensations constitute the first signaling system.

Man, however, possesses in addition to the first signaling system the ability to generalize with words the countless signals of this system.In so doing,a word, as Pavlov put it, becomes a signal of signals. The analysis and synthesis perfor-med by the cerebral cortex when a second signaling system is present relate not on-ly to individual, concrete stimuli but also to their generalization in the form of words. The second signaling system arose in the course of evolution during social activity. The capacity for the generalized reflection of objects and phenomena provided man with an unlimited ability to orient himself in the surrounding world and enabled him to create science.

The first and second signaling systems represent different levels of a unified higher nervous activity,but the second signaling system is more important.It came into being solely under the influence of man’s dealings with other people - that is, it was determined not only by biological factors but also by social ones.The na- ture of the interaction of the two systems may vary with the individual’s educational level (social factor) and characteristics of his nervous system (biological factor). Some people have a relatively weak first signaling system;their direct sensations are dull and weak (intellectual types). Others, in contrast, receive the signals of the first signaling system clearly and strongly (artistic types). The timely and correct develop-ment of both signaling systems are needed for the sound development of the personality.

In the study of the second signaling system there was an initial emphasis on the ac-cumulation of facts detailing the significance of the generalization function of verbal signals. Subsequently, an emphasis developed on the discovery of neural mecha-nisms involved in verbal activity.It has been determined that the process of generali- zation by means of words develops as a result of the elaboration of a system of con-ditioned associations; in this system the nature of the associations and their number are important: associations that are worked out during childhood facilitate the gene-ralization process. Verbal signals produce persisting changes in excitability and stronger,more frequent,and longer electrical discharges in the nerve cells in certain regions of the cerebral cortex. The second signaling system developed as a result of the activity of the entire cerebral cortex; it is impossible to link this process to the function of any one individual portion of the brain.

REFERENCES

Pavlov, I.P. Poln. sobr. trudov, vols. 1-5. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940 - 49.
Krasnogorskii, N.I. Trudy po izucheniiu vysshei nervnoi deiatel’nosti cheloveka i zhivotnykh, vol.1. Moscow, 1954.
Boiko, E.I. “Osnovnye polozheniia vysshei neirodinamiki.” In the collection Pogranichnye problemy psikhologii i fiziologii. Moscow, 1961.
Kol’tsova, M.M. Obobshchenie kak funktsiia mozga.Leningrad, 967.

M. M. KOL’TSOVA

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. “

Erityistä hakusanaa sille ensimmäiselle signalisaatiosysteemille ei ole. Se sisältää sellaisen ehdollistuneen informaation, joka EI KUULU TOISEEN signalisoitisystee- miin.


BB: “ I don’t want to leave the impression that nothing was accomplished in beha- vioural studies between 1913 and 1990.Behaviourists learned much of lasting value. But they certainly did not add to our understanding of our own experience, of cognitive functions, purposeful control, or of the self.


  1. Did Pavlov disprove consciousness?


Few scientists believe that Pavlov disposed of the question forever. In the last decade consciousness has come to the fore again in biopsy-chology. “


SB: Kuten yllä ilmenee, tietoisuus/tajunta ei ole “biopsykologinen”, vaan symbolirakenteinen “sosiopsyko-loginen” ilmiö!


BB: “ New discoveries have been made, new scientific journals and societies foun- ded, books published, and collections of articles produced (e.g.,Baars et al.,2003). A search for the word ‘consciousness’ in the biomedical literature shows an increa- sing curve starting from several dozen in 1965 to over 5400 in the year 2000 (Baars, 2003 b). While this gives only a rough estimate, it is consistent with other evidence. Consciousness is back. “


SB: Englannin kielen consciousness on kaksimielinen sana tarkoittaen sekä tajuntaa (Bewusstsein, soznanie) että ´tietoisuutta´ (Bewusstheit, soznatel´nost´) pseudotie-teelliset lällärilallarit kuten Baars eivät anna tämän tieteessä mahdottoman tilanteen ollenkaan häiritä, vaan luulevat ”käyttävänsä hyväkseen” tätä tilannetta huijausmielessä (ja ehkä olevansa hyvinkin ovelia)…


BB: ”Contrary to popular belief Pavlovian training is not automatic and unconscious.“


SB: Pääasiassa se ON tiedostamatonta!


BB: ” Not only must an animal or person be conscious of the innate stimulus (like food) and of the signal (like a bell); they must also be conscious of the relationship between the two. “


SB: EI TARVITSE. Sikiökin oppivat kohdussa muistamaan esimerkiksi äänneyhdistelmiä, joista ne sittemmin tunnistavat äidinkielen, ja TAATUSTI TIEDOSTAMATTOMASTI.


BB: “ Lovibond and Shanks (2002) conclude that ‘The bulk of the evidence is con- sistent with the position that awareness (of the relation- ship) is necessary but not sufficient for condi-tioned performance’. Pavlovian training thus supports the role of consciousness in learning (e.g., Baars, 1988; 2002a).


SB:  Taju/vavetila, awareness todellakin katsotaanyleensä tarvittavan ehdol-listumiseen, mutta se ei ole ”consciousness” -sanan synonyymi sen kummassakaan merkityksessä!

Mitä Baarsin kaakatuksesta jää käteen, on verbaalinen kusetus eikä mitään muuta!


BB: “ A clever experiment by Dawson and Furedy (1976) demonstrates this point. They trained an association between a soft tone followed by a surprisingly loud noise. If they are given in a series (‘tone - NOISE, tone - NOISE, tone - NOISE ...’), after a while the tone alone evokes a change in skin conductivity, as sweat pores open to prepare the body to react to the noise.The tone has become a signal that a loud noise is coming: Pavlovian association.Now,without changing the stimuli, Daw- son and Furedy changed the way subjects understood the task.They were told that the noise signalled the tone,rather than vice versa.Their task was to judge the loud- ness of the tone. The new series was perceived as ‘NOISE - tone, NOISE - tone, NOISE - tone ...’ . Yet physically nothing had changed. Under these conditions ab- solutely no Pavlovian learning occurred. Isolated tones no longer evoked sweating. Thus, the subjects’ interpretation of the stimuli changed everything. Conscious in- terpretation seems to be needed for Pavlovian association to occur (Baars,1988). “


SB: Aivan täysin Pavlovin odotusten mukaista YHTEISKUNNALLISELL A 2. SS:n tasolla!


BB:             

          

  1. Did Pavlov disprove volition?  “

 

SB: Jällenne kerran: PAVLOV EI IKINÄ EDES YRITTÄNYT KIISTÄÄ TAHTOA!!!


BB: “ In 1888 William James wrote, ‘In voluntary action the act is foreseen from the very first. The idea of it always precedes the execution.This is the essence of every voluntary action’ (p.241). The simplest way to find out whether an action is voluntary is to ask someone whether it is their goal,or to ask them to adopt it. People can per- form skeletal muscle movements on request, but they cannot decide to move the smooth muscles of the intestines.Almost everyone can silently talk to themselves on purpose,but most people cannot wiggle their ears at will. These contrasts reflect sys-tematic differences in the neurophysiology. But even today, some psychologists refuse to talk about volition as such, still misled by the behaviouristic decades of rejection. “


SB: Ei suinkaan PELKÄSTÄÄN behavioristien, vaan myös “evuluutiopsykologien”, joiden BIOLOGIAKIN ON VÄÄRENNETTYÄ toisin kuin bahavioristien, JOIDEN BIOLOGI A OLI PÄÄOSIN OIKEAA, mutta lähetymistapa siitä eteenpäin virheellisen reduktionistinen!

Pavlov EI OLLUT BAHAVIORISTI, tai jos oli joskus, niin irrottautui siitä vuonna 1932 2. signalisointisysteemillään!


BB: ” James’ definition provides a simple test for voluntary control in humans. In many cases people can tell us about their goals before carrying them out. That is an indispensable fact in fields like neurology and psychiatry.To abandon it would make medical diagnosis impossible. You cannot even ask a patient to open his mouth and say ‘Ah’ without giving him a conscious goal. Most psychological pathology also is defined by the fact that certain unwanted acts,thoughts or feelings cannot be cont-rolled on purpose. In the real world volitional control is inescapable (Baars, 1988; 1992; 1997; 2002a).

It is easy to demonstrate the need for a concept of volition by the knee-jerk reflex. The reader can drape one leg over the other so that it can swing freely,and then tap sharply just below the knee cap on the patellar tendon. Your leg will swing out invo- luntarily, with a spring-loaded quality quite different from a voluntary movement. To Pavlov and others, this movement had just the mechanistic quality needed to illustrate the physical nature of human action. “


SB: Ei pidä paikkaansa,koska kyseessä on täysin ehdoton refleksi. Pähkähullua järjetöntä valehtelua… Pavlovin mukaan ihnimillinen toiminta (action, activitivity) rakentuu EHDOLLISTEN reflekien SYSTEEMILLE ja siinä vielä kielellisesti organisoituneelle osalle.

Polvirefleksi on kylläkin aito keskushermostorefleksi, eräs ihmisen monosynapti- sista ehdottomista reflekseistä.


BB: ” However, now take the demonstration one step further and try to imitate the reflex action of your leg, with exactly the same velocity and dynamics. “


SB: “Reflex action” on väärä termi ehdottoman refleksin reaktio-osasta (reaction), kuten myös ehdollisenkin ref- leksin pelkästä reaktiosta!


BB: “ That is, simply try to follow the goal given in the previous sentence It is quite difficult to do exactly;voluntary control of the leg is quite different from the knee-jerk reflex. Normal leg movements are guided by cortex, while an involuntary spinal reflex is momentarily free of cortical control. That is why it feels so different. “


SB: Aivan totta. Pavlov kaikein viimeksi on mitään muuta väittänytkään! Tämä polvirefkesi on kuvattu tuolla Sovjetskajan reflex-hakusa-nassakin!


BB: “ We can be surprised by our own knee-jerk reflex,but not by our own voluntary actions. As James pointed out the crucial difference is that we can steer voluntary actions by their endpoints, their goals. Such a comparison between a spinal reflex and its voluntary imitation constitutes a true experiment. It shows the reality of voli- tional control, because contra Pavlov, we must explain not just the local reflex, but also its normal goal-guided voluntary version. “


SB: se EI ole “saman refleksin versio”,vaan se on kokonaan ERI REFLEKSI.Toinen on ehdollinen,toinen ehdoton.


BB: “ Physiologists in 1900 understood this point perfectly well. As Sherrington wrote,

The cortical basis of volition does not apply to all motivational mechanisms. Nume- rous goal-related regions exist in the brain, including in the phylogenetically earlier brainstem (e.g., the peri-aqueductal grey,the region involved in mother-infant attach- ment in mammals). These brain regions involve goals that humans may experience as impulsive,not under full voluntary control.They are not cortical. Just as conscious- ness involves a particular kind of knowledge in human beings,volition involves a particular kind of goal-directed control. (See Baars,1988). “


SB: Tahto perustuu tiedolle, vaihtoehtojen ajatukselliselle hahmottamiselle. Missään muualla kuin aivokuorella ei ole mitään tahtoa. Tähän nojattiin Neuvostoliitossa:

http://www.inovun.net/overload/Tuotantotapa

” Ihmistyö (labo(u)r) poikkeaa eläinten toiminnoista siinä tärkeässä suhteessa, että siihen liittyy työvälineiden valmistus. Eläimetkin hankkivat ravintonsa, mutta ne eivät yleensä valmista sitä varten työvälineitä. Milloin ne sellaisia kuitenkin tekevät (esim. mehiläiset tai hämähäkit), niiden "työ" poikkeaa ihmistyöstä ratkaisevasti siinä, että ne toimivatkokonaan vaistonvaraisesti.

Huonoimmankin rakennusmestarin erottaa parhaimmastakin mehiläisestä jo kohta se,että hän on rakentanut kennot päässään ennen kuin hän ne rakentaa vahasta. Työprosessin lopussa saadaan tulos, joka sen alussa on jo ollut työmiehen mieliku- vituksessa, siis ajatuksellisesti olemassa."

 

Karl Marx: Pääoma, I osa, s. 190.

Tuotantovälineitä ja työvoimaa kutsutaan yhteisellä nimityksellä tuotantovoimiksi. Tuotantovoimilla on erittäin merkittävä osuus ihmisten yhteiskunnallisessa kehityk-sessä, sillä niiden kehitykseen pohjautuu loppujen lopuksi kaikki kehitys.Tuotanto-voimat muodostavat yhteiskunnan aktiivisimman, vallankumouksellisimman, aina kehittyvän aineksen. ”


BB: “It is clear, in higher animals especially so, that reflexes are under control by higher centres to whose activity consciousness is adjunct. By these higher centres, this or that reflex can be checked, or released, or modified. It is urgently necessary for physiology to know how this control - volitional control - is operative upon reflexes (1906/1947, pp. 385–6). “


SB: Se kontrolliskin on reflekstoimintaa, mutta ylemmällä systeemi- ja myös ylemmällä emergenssitasolla. Tahto ei synny vain aivoista, VAAN MYÖS YHTEISKUNNASTA.


BB: “ Today, brain imaging techniques can show the neuronal activity of volition. “


SB: “ Mielenkiintoista! Useimmat muut väittävät, tahdon puolustajatkin, että EI VOI aivokuvantaa tahtoaktia (esimerkiksi koska se tapahtuu astrosyytin ohjaamassa sy-napsissa, kun vaihtoehdot ensin on hahmotettu ajattelussa) TAI JOPA ETTÄ AIVO-KUVANTAMINEN (JA JOPA VIELÄKIN YKSINKERTAISEMMAT MENETELMÄT VIELÄPÄ VARMAN PÄÄLLE ”TODISTAISIVAT”,ETTÄ ”VARMASTI EI VOI OLLA TAHTOA”!

http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelut/post1887864.html#p1887864

http://nakokulma.net/index.php?topic=1634.175

http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2011/09/libetin-koe-tiedostamatt...


BB: “ Spence and Frith recently wrote that a number of brain regions contribute to the performance of consciously chosen,or ‘willed’,actions. Disease, or dysfunction, of these circuits may be associated with a variety of disorders of volition (1999).

After a century of taboo we have returned to the scientific questions of 1900.


III: Other Physiologists did not Accept Pavlov’s Claims

 

SB: Joks siis EI OLLUT AIKAKAAN PAVLOVIN “vaatimus”!!!!


BB: ”Sir Charles Sherrington,also a Nobel Prize winner in physiology,took a very dif- ferent tack from Pavlov. Sherrington was a pioneering student of reflex actions. His classic work The Integrative Action of the Nervous System (1906/1947) came out only two years after Pavlov’s work was first published in the West. It presents nume-rous experiments on reflexes. Sherrington was critical of Descartes’ mechanistic idea that

Cat, dog, horse, etc. were trigger-puppets which events in the circum-ambient uni- verse touched off into doing what they do. It lets us feel that Descartes can never have kept an animal pet.

Sherrington and others demonstrated that simple reflexes can be seen mainly when the spinal cord is isolated from the cortex. Under those conditions animals actually become ‘trigger puppets’.

(The cerebral cortex) can be removed under anaesthesia,and on the narcosis pas- sing off the animal is found to be a Cartesian puppet: It can execute certain acts but is devoid of mind. Thoughts, feeling, memory, perceptions, conations (voluntary actions), etc.; of these no evidence is forthcoming. “


SB: Ehdolliset refleksit ovat poissa,mutta ehdottomat jäljellä. Ihan just kuten Pavlovin teoriakin ennustaa!


BB: “Thus,the cat set upright on a ‘floor’ moving backward under its feet walks, runs or gallops according to the speed given to the floorway. In the dog a feeble electric current on the shoulder brings the hind paw of that side to the place, and performs a rhythmic grooming of the hairy coat there.If a foot treads on a thorn that foot is held up from the ground while the other legs limp away. Milk placed in the mouth is swal-lowed; acid solution is rejected.The dog shakes its coat dry after immersion in water.

Yet spinal reflexes are impoverished:

But,when all is said, if we compare such a list (of spinal reflexes) with the range of situations to which the normal dog or cat reacts appropriately, it is extremely poverty stricken. It contains no social reactions, it fails to recognize food as food:It shows no memory, it cannot be trained or learn it cannot be taught its name. The mindless body reacts with the fatality of a penny-in-the-slot machine (p. xii). “


SB: Nuo eivät ole “selkäydinrefkesejä”, vaan kyllä ne keskiaivojen kautta kulkevat.


BB: “To Sherrington,reflexes showed one level of integration.But they also raised the question of a higher level: What is it that the brain does to guide and organize spinal activities? In nor- mal animals refle- xes are subordinate to the conscious and voluntary control of the cerebral cortex. “


SB: ELÄIMILLÄ EI OLE TAHTOA EIKÄ TAJUNTAA!

Tuossa on kyseessä VAIN EHDOLLISTEN JA EHDOTTOMIEN REFLEKSIEN ERO!!!


BB: ” That is where goal-directed action is organized,where food and danger are re- cognized, social action is directed, and incoming sensations are unified. A striking example Sherrington explored was the unitary perception of the world when two dif- ferent images are presented to the two eyes. In recent years this has proved to be one of the most productive methods for studying visual consciousness (e.g., Logothetis & Schall,1989). “

SB: Cortex on se, missä on KAIKKI EHDOLLINEN REFLEKSITOIMINTA!!!


BB: “ In physiology Sherrington was as prominent as Pavlov, but he did not make utopian claims. He was not famous to the general public. Pavlov’s popular followers ignored him.


  1. Lashley’s evidence against brain reflexes


Karl Lashley began as a student of John B., the first famous radical behaviourist in psychology. In 1923 Lashley noted with approval how behaviourism was ‘spreading like wild-fire’. Seven years later, in a classic article, he has changed his mind. While reflex pathways could explain some spinal mechanisms, they failed to account for basic facts about the brain. He wrote,

The notion of the reflex arc was developed in studies of spinal preparations (ani- mals whose brains were severed from their spinal cords). Under these simple con- ditions something like a point-for-point correspondence between receptor cells and muscle groups could be demonstrated, as in the case of the scratch reflex.

However, in the study of cerebral functions we seem to have reached a point where the reflex theory is no longer profitable.And if it is not serviceable here,it can scarce- ly be of greater value for an understanding of the phenomena of behaviour (Lash-ley,1930,p.12). The reason is,of course, that normal behaviour always involves the intact brain. Lashley’s critique was therefore not just physiological, but psychological as well.

Lashley presented three arguments against a reflex explanation. First, there simply was no evidence for reflex pathways in the cortex: ‘...there is certainly no direct evi-dence for the existence of any sharply defined reflex paths whose interruption results in the loss of isola- ted elementary functions’ (p.10).

Thus,cerebral cortex is fundamentally different from the spinal cord. “


SB: Ihan justiin kuten Pavlov sanoikin.

R. Dougals Fields kertoo täällä, miten refleksikaaret aivokuorella todennäköisimmin muodostuvat.


BB: “ Second, there was no evidence for stereotyped sensory input. In contrast to isolated reflexes, a large class of sensory stimuli were effectively equivalent.

We have a situation where a habit is formed by the activation of one set of receptors and executed immediately upon stimulation of an entirely different and unpractised group. The equivalence of stimuli is not due to the excitation of common nervous elements. “


SB: Pitää paikkansa.Ei haittaa ollenkaan,vaan kuuluu ehdollisten refleksien olemukseen: tiettyä refleksiä EI EDUSTA MIKÄÄN TIETTY YHTEINEN AIVOFYSIOLOGINEN PIIRRE ERI YKSILÖILLÄ.


BB: “ Finally, there was no evidence for stereotyped reflexive responses in animals with intact brains. Instead, habits showed motor equivalence: A maze could be run in many different ways.

Turning to motor activity, we are confronted by an identical problem. If we train an animal in a maze we find little identity of movement in successive trials. He gallops through in one trial, in another shuffles along, sniffing at the cover of the box. If we injure his cerebellum, he may roll through the maze.

The animal has a vast range of possible ways to reach its goal,even when its motor control has been severely damaged.‘He follows the correct path with every variety of twist and posture, so that we cannot identify a single movement as characteristic of the habit’. The same points applied all the way from birds to humans. ‘Activities ran-ging from the building of characteristic nests by birds to the activities of man show the absence of stereotyped movements in the attainment of a predetermined goal’ (pp. 6–7). Thus, any single goal can be achieved in many different ways, across a vast range of species.

In sum,Lashley found no rigid reflex-like sensory or motor functions in the cortex,and no simple reflex pathways. Pavlov’s universal reflex hypothesis did not hold up. Yet as we shall see, falsification did not stop the radical program of stimulus – response reduction. “


SB:Yksinketaisuus tai monimutkaisuus eivät ole “kohtalokkaista eroja” systeemisesti järjestäytyneille ehdollisille reflekseille. Kielessä kukin sana on ärsyke:

Reflex Arc

a group of nerve structures involved in reflex action.The term “reflex arc,” or “nervous arc,” was introduced in 1850 by the British physician and physiologist M. Hall, who was describing the anatomic elements of a reflex.

A reflex arc includes

(1) receptors, or nerve endings that respond to stimulation;

(2) afferent (centripetal) nerve fibers, or the processes of receptor neurons that transmit impulses from sensory nerve endings to the central nervous system;

(3) a nerve center, that is, neurons that sense excitation and transmit it to effector neurons through the appropriate synapses;

(4) efferent (centrifugal) nerve fibers that transmit excitation from the central nervous system to the periphery; and (5) an effector organ whose activity changes as a result of a reflex.

The simplest two-neuron,or monosynaptic,reflex arc consists of receptor and effector neurons separated by a synapse.A multineuron, or polysynaptic,reflex arc consists of a receptor neuron, several internuncial neurons, and an effector neuron, all of which are separated by synapses. A reflex arc does not completely reflect the structure of a reflex because of the proven existence of reverse afference,that is,excitation that informs a nerve center about the condition of an effector organ.

V. G. ZILOV

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. “


BB:   IV: Reflex Explanation in the West


In the decades after 1900 the goal of reducing all behaviour to reflexes became po- pular in the United States and Britain among social reformers, journalists, philoso-phers, and radical behaviourists. Many physiologists and psychologists remained sceptical; but their voices were not heard by the public.

It was John Watson who first imported Pavlov into Western behaviourism (Watson, 1916; Hilgard,1986). Like Pavlov, Watson confidently promised utopian solutions:

Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abili- ties, vocations, and race of his ancestors (1930, p. 82).

This had wonderful appeal to American readers. But Watson had no evidence. He had published only one case of conditioned fear in a baby, the case of ‘Little Albert’ Watson & Rayner, 1928). It was Pavlov’s story all over again.

The reflex hypothesis encountered a crisis when Lashley’s 1930 article appeared (above). It was widely read, and his evidence was not disputed. Yet the hypothesis was not abandoned when it was falsified; it merely assumed a new guise. Under the influence of B.F. Skinner, all behaviour was taken to involve ‘stimulus-response contingencies’ without evidence for a physiological reflex. (Skinner, 1931; 1953; 1976; Baars 1986). Skinner thereby saved the beha- viourist movement.“


SB: Refleksi on koko ajan ollut etologinen eikä fysiologinen käsite myös Pavlovilla, ja ymmärtääkseni Setšenovillakin!

Jos tuollainen muka ”kriisi” koskaan ehti neuvostoliittoon, se loppui lyhyeen vuonna 1932, kun Pavlov julkaisi asettamuksensa symbolirakenteisesta toisesta signaalisysteemistä.


BB: “Skinner’s famous box,invented about 1935,was useful for collecting data about stimuli and responses, but ‘operant conditioning’ in fact involves nothing other than voluntary, purposeful behaviour. “


SB:  HELVETIN VALE!   

Esimerkiksi polkupyörää piedetään ajaessa pystyssä intrumentaalisilla ohjausreflek-seillä,MUTTA SE EI OLE TIETOISTA,eikä tietoinen ohjaus edes ehtisi reagoimaan niin nopeasti siihen, kummalle puolelle pyörä kulloinkin on kaatumassa! Tuo pystyssäpito-ohjaus tapahtuu alitajuisesti tietoisen suuntaohjauksen rinnalla.


BB: Skinner himself was quite clear about that point when he wrote that ‘the operant is the field of purpose’.


SB: Tarkoitusten muodostamiseen tarvitaan ehdottomasti instrumentaalisia ehdolli- sia refleksejä (mm. sanoja merkityksineen), mutta KAIKKI intrumentaaliset ehdolli- set refleksit EIVÄT SUINKAAN OLE TAJUNTAA!!!!


BB: “ Operant behaviour always involves goals like food, water or avoiding pain. “


SB: Goal eli “maali” ei ole samaa kuin tietoinen tarkoitus!


BB: “ What is learned is a response that is a subgoal to be carried out before the biological goal can be reached. A hungry pigeon learns to peck at a red light as a means to its real goal of food. But to state this obvious fact, the common sense vocabulary of goals is needed - and it was banned as unscientific.Goals are not physically observable, though they are often easy to infer from watching an animal behave. But inferential concepts were banned from radical behaviourism (Baars, 1986). “


SB: Päätelmälliset (inferential) käsitteet ovat bannattuja silloin,kun on “päätelty” tie- teellisten periaatteiden vastaisesti, esimerkiksi personifioitu biologista tai biolo- gisoitu sosiaalista! Kaikki, mikä sisältää kieltä olemuksellisena ainesosanaan, on sosiaalista.


BB: “ Thus an external,physical description of the action had to be devised: the vocabulary of operant conditioning. That was perhaps Skinner’s most significant accomplishment: a third-person account of common sense. “


SB: Skinner ei ole instrumentaaliten/operanttien ehdollisten refleksien tieteellinen todistaja, vaan Anatoli Grigorjevitsh Ivanov-Smolenski (1927).


SB: “ Skinner rose to public prominence in the 1940s and 50s. For five more decades, his public fame kept the rejectionist program alive. The ban against consciousness stayed strong.


BB: Like Pavlov and Watson, Skinner claimed that his ideas applied to all animals and humans without testing them in natural situations. His universal claims began about 1935,before he had even trained many pigeons. Decades later, when Breland and Breland (1961) finally conducted operant training in 38 different species, they found numerous limits on the method, and intrusions of untrained actions. In nature such ‘unconditioned’ behaviour is likely to be much greater.

In sum, the three most extreme behaviourists dominated public debate between 1920 and 1990. All of them based their claims on utterly inadequate evidence. All appealed to utopian hopes, and all aimed to purge consciousness and volition. Together they shaped the century. “

 

SB: Puhdasta paskaa ja valhetta PAVLOVIA koskien.


BB:    V: Purging Consciousness

Pavlov’s most questionable impact came from what he denied,rather than what he asserted. Scientists assert flawed ideas all the time, but they are usually falsified quickly.But in the twentieth century consciousness and volition were purged for most of the century.They became taboo.No working scientist was free to explore them, on pain of being read out of science. Pavlov’s denial of the fundamentals could not be falsified, because it was forbidden to test them.


SB: Tasan päinvastainen: kiellisen ajttelun kiistavä redukstionismi ja varsinkin “geenideterminismi” olivat kiellettyjä itse Neusotoliitosssa. Erionomainen kiellisen ajatteluteorian (Vygotski) yleisesitys on Stalinin teos ”Marxismin kysymyksiä kielitieteessä”:

" It is said that thoughts arise in the mind of man prior to their being expressed in speech, that they arise without linguistic material, without linguistic integument, in, so to say, a naked form. But that is absolutely wrong. Whatever thoughts arise in the human mind and at whatever moment, they can arise and exist only on the basis of the linguistic material, on the basis of language terms and phrases.

Bare thoughts, free of the linguistic material, free of the "natural matter" of language, do not exist.

"Language is the immediate reality of thought" (Marx). The reality of thought is ma-nifested in language. Only idealists can speak of thinking not being connected with "the natural matter" of language,of thinking without language. “


BB: “ Imagine if physics in 1900 had declared relativity and quantum theory to be unscientific. Twentieth-century physics would be an intellectual desert. Einstein, Planck and Heisenberg would be erased from history. To its credit the physics community was open to ideas that overturned the received wisdom.The new human sciences were not. They dealt with difficult puzzles by rejecting them. “


SB: Pavlov on justiin “Biologian Einstein”, kun Darwin on sen ”Newton” ja Lamarck sen ”Galilei”.

Häntä yritetään ”poistaa”,mutta se nyt vaan ei kerta kaikiaan onnistu!


BB: “ The taboo against consciousness became the norm in psycho- logy and even biology, endorsed by analytical philosophy. “


SB: Sellaista tabua ei ikinä ollut (”vallassa”) Neuvostoliitossa! Ei myöskään Kiinassa.


BB: “ The great taboo was not just a loss to science. Neglect of our core humanity has wider costs. No one can empathize with ‘trigger-puppets’. Four successive ge- nerations of university students were taught mechanistic beliefs about themselves and each other. They went on to adult lives believing that science had proven their personal experiences to be meaningless, and their voluntary efforts in life to be me- rely the product of reflex association.A more alienating doctrine is hard to imagine.“


SB: Vieläkin “vieraannuttavampi” todellisuudesta ja kaikesta järjestä on “PIERUPEI-LINEURONIT”!!!! Ja tahdonkiisto-puoskarointihan EI KUITENKAAN ULOTTUNUT NEUVOSTOLIITTOON, SAATI ”OLLUT  PERÄISIN SIELTÄ”!


BB: ”  VI: Where We are Today


Starting in the 1970s, psychology went through a ‘cognitive revolution’ in which many nineteenth-century ideas were rediscovered and given a stronger empirical and theoretical basis (Baars,1986). Mental imagery came back, as did memorymeaning,  perceptionknowledgethinkinglanguage and the like. “


SB: Paskaista härskiä valehtelua…


BB: “ But the cognitive revolution did not bring back consciousness and volition. These have only returned with the rise of cognitive neuro-science in the last decade (e.g.,Baars,1988;2002;Edelman1989;Edelman&Tononi,2001; Spence&Frith, 1999). Scientifically we are much closer to the nineteenth century than to the twentieth.

It is now a hundred years since Pavlov’s first report about conditional reflexes.Per- haps 10000 experiments have been published using his method.Many useful results have been obtained, in emotional association,appetitive learning, and even drug ad-diction. Pavlovian training is also used to explore simple associative learning in the brain.But none of his utopian promises have come true.The great scientific problems Pavlov claimed to have eliminated,consciousness and volition, are back in the head- lines (Spence&Frith,1999; Baars, 2002). Pavlov’s taboo against consciousness and volition became a dominant theme of Anglo-American thought for a century.Much of it is with us still. “


Tuohon paskaan Pavlov yhdistetään EHDOTTOMAN AIHEETTO- MASTI, kuten KAIKKI LINKKINI TODISTAVAT!!!


BB: ” VII: Conclusion: Denying Consciousness is Dehumanizing


The twentieth century was torn by some of the most destructive conflicts since the great religious wars of European history.In war - domestic or foreign - people always dehumanize the enemy; we treat others as feelingless objects.While Pavlov had uto-pian intentions, his ideas set the stage for a dehumanized conception of people. A person without feelings, choice, and identity can only be a negligible cog in a blind and merciless machine. With such a ‘scientific’ conception it becomes much easier to dehumanize people.

Pavlov’s followers saw his work in terms of the long struggle between science and religion. Science was seen as the key to human progress, while established religion seemed to support an oppressive status quo. To his admirers, Pavlov was one more hero in the progress of science.

British analytic philosophy was for all intents and purposes equivalent to behaviou- rism, as Skinner long maintained. It dominated English-speaking countries for decades. In biology, reductionists such as Jacques Loeb had a similar impact. Behaviourism of one kind or another therefore made a clean sweep: philosophy, psychology, and physiology all rejected consciousness.

Utopian perfectionism can be destructive. A respected team of French Marxist his- torians recently estimated that utopian regimes from Lenin to Pol Pot were respon- sible for 100 million domestic deaths in the twentieth century (Courtois et al,1999). That number may be doubled with the death toll from other ideologies, with their own ideals of coerced perfection. Those massacres were invariably preceded by dehumanization of the victims, denying their conscious point of view.“


SB: Puhtainta paskaa ja sontaa!

http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2011/08/miten-halosen-ja-hautala...

http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2014/08/miten-maailman-paras-yliopisto-sepitti-ukrainan-jarjestetyn-nalanhadän

http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/Message/Message/369723

Pol Potilla ei ollut mitään tekemistä tieteen kanssa. Hän oli ”sosio-biologisti”. Se ei muuta asian epätieteellisyyttä miksikään, että hän uskoin ”kommunismin olevan Keenistä” (seuraajillaan…) eikä kapitalismin.


BB: “ [6] By 1965 Razran estimated that 6000 experimental papers had been published about Pavlovian learning. That number has now perhaps doubled.

It is a devastating irony that Pavlov’s idealistic reduction of human nature could have such results. But reflex explanation could only become a comic-strip caricature. In my view it led to dreadfully impoverished science, compared to the humanizing riches of the century of William James.Of course there is nothing wrong with study- ing reflexes; but it is false and misleading to say that it provides a more scientific substitute for the fundamentals of human psychology. We are still struggling to recover from the resulting mistakes.

The most disturbing side of Pavlov’s celebrity was the worldwide enthusiasm for a simplistic reduction of mind.Just before World War II,John Maynard Keynes issued an eloquent warning:

Practical men,who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influ-ences,are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil (1936, p.570).

Pavlov’s story is a cautionary tale for utopian dreamers to come. “


SB: Pavlov kuuluu kaikkien aikojen viiden (5) ansiotuneimman tiedemiehen joukkon:

http://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2014/04/kuka-onkaan-kaikkien-aikojen-antifasisti


BB: Acknowledgements


This work was supported by the Neurosciences Institute (johtaja puoskarinobelisti  Gerald Edelman, jonka noopelilla immuunimekanismista ei ole mitään tekemistä käyttäytymisen kanssa) and the Neurosciences Research Foundation,which are gratefully acknowledged.I am grateful to Joseph Goguen, John Kihlstrom, Doug Watt, and Tom Dalton for helping me to clarify a number of points.


SB: Daltonin “eoria” on tälläinen:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_Darwinism


BB: References


Andreyev, L.A. (1937),‘The great teacher and master of science’,Scientific Monthly, 45,pp.166–7.

Baars, B.J. (1986), The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology (New York:Guilford Press).

Baars, B.J. (1988), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Baars, B.J. (1992), Experiments Slips and Human Error: Exploring the Architecture of Vo... (New York: Plenum Press.

Baars, B.J. (1997), In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind (New York: OUP).

Baars,B.J.(2002a),‘The conscious access hypothesis:Origins and recent evidence’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (1), pp. 47–52.

(May be found at: http://www.nsi.edu/users/baars/BaarsTICS2002.pdf)

Baars, B.J. (2002b), ‘Behaviourism redux?’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (6),

Baars, B.J. (2003a), ‘The double life of B.F. Skinner’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10 (1), pp. 5–25.

Baars, B.J.(2003b),‘How brain reveals mind:Neural studies support the fundamental role of conscious experiece’,Journal of Consciousness Studies,10 (9–10).

Baars, B.J., Banks, W.P., Newman, J.(ed.2003),Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books).

Basgen, B., Blunden, A. (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Marxism,Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org),1999–2002.

Boring, E.G. (1929), ‘The psychology of controversy’, Psychological Review, 36,

Breland, K., Breland, M. (1961), ‘The misbehavior of organisms’, American Psychologist, 16, pp. 681–4.

Courtois, S., Kramer, M. (Trans), Murphy, J. (Trans), Bartosek, K., Paczkowski, A., Panne, J.-L.,

Margolin, J.L.(1999),The Black Book of Communism:Crimes,Terror,Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Originally published in French in 1997.

Dawson, M.E., Furedy, J.J. (1976), ‘The role of awareness in human differential autonomic classical

conditioning: The necessary-gate hypothesis’, Psychophysiology, 13 (1), pp. 50–3.

Edelman, G.M. (1989), The Remembered Present (New York: Basic Books).

Edelman, G.M., Tononi, G. (2001), A Universe of Consciousness (New York: Basic Books).

Edwards, P. (Ed.) (1967), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).

Fulton, J.F.(1940),Bull of Inst of Hist and Med,pp.32–54.Cited by Gantt,W.H.(1927), Introduction to I.P. Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes and Psychiatry, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes,Vol.2 (New York:International Publishers).

Garcia, J., Koelling, R.A. (1966), ‘Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning’, Psychonomic Science, 4, pp. 123 – 4.

Hilgard, E.R. (1948), Theories of Learning (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).

Hilgard, E.R. (1986), Psychology in America: A Historical Survey (New York: Harcourt Brace Ivanovich).

Hugdahl K. (1998),‘Cortical control of human classical conditioning: autonomic and positron emission tomography data’, Psychophysiology, 35 (2), pp. 170–8.

James, W. (1888), ‘What the will effects’, Harper’s Magazine.

James, W. (1890/1983), The Principles of Psychology. Revised edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP).

Keynes, J.M. (1936),General Theory of Employment,Interest,and Money (1964 reprint,New York:Harcourt Brace).

Kreiman,G., Fried,I., Koch,C. (2002), ‘Single neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial t...’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,

Kreiman, G., Koch, C., Fried, I.(2000), ‘Imagery neurons in the brain’, Nature,408,pp. 357–61.

Lashley, K.(1923),‘The behavioristic interpretation of consciousness’,Psychological Bulletin, 30, p.237–72,329–53.

Lashley, K. (1930), ‘Basic neural mechanisms in behaviour’, Psychological Review, 37, pp. 1–24.

Logothetis, N.K., Schall, J.D. (1989), ‘Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception’, Science, 245 (4919), pp. 761 – 3.

Lovibond, P.F., Shanks,D.R.(2002),‘The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28 (1), pp. 3–26.

Miller,G.A. (1962),Psychology,The Science of Mental Life (Harmondsworth:Penguin Science).

Miller, G.A., Interview in Baars, B.J. (1986), The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology (New York: Guilford Press).

Pavlov, I.P. (1927), Conditioned Reflexes and Psychiatry. Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes, Vols. 1 and 2, trans. and ed. W.H. Gantt (New York: International Publishers).

Razran, G. (1961), ‘The observable unconscious and inferrable conscious in current Soviet psychophysiology: Interoceptive conditioning, semantic conditioning, and the orienting reflex’, Psychological Review, 68, pp. 81–147.

Russell, B. (1921), The Analysis of Mind (London: Muirhead Library of Philosophy).

Sherrington, C. (1906/1947), The Integrative Activity of the Nervous System (New Haven, CT: Yale UP).

Skinner, B.F. (1931), ‘The concept of the reflex in the description of behaviour’, Journal of General Psychology, 5, pp. 427 – 58.

Skinner, B.F. (1934), ‘Has Gertrude Stein a secret?’, Atlantic Monthly, January,

Skinner, B.F. (1945),‘Baby in a box’, Ladies’ Home Journal, October, pp. 30–1,135.

Skinner, B.F. (1948), Walden Two (New York: Macmillan).

Skinner, B.F. (1953), Science and Human Behaviour (New York: Macmillan).

Skinner, B.F. (1957), Verbal Behavior (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).

Skinner, B.F. (1961), ‘The design of cultures’, Daedalus, 90, pp. 534–46.

Skinner, B.F. (1967), ‘Utopia through the control of human behaviour’, The Listener, January12, pp. 55–6.

Skinner, B.F. (1969), ‘The machine that is man’, Psychology Today, pp.20–5, 60–3.

Skinner, B.F. (1971), Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Knopf).

Skinner, B.F. (1974), About Behaviorism (New York: Random House).

Skinner, B.F. (1976), Particulars of My Life (New York: Knopf).

Skinner, B.F. (1979), The Shaping of a Behaviorist (New York: Knopf).

Spence, S.A., Frith, C.D. (1999), ‘Towards a functional anatomy of volition’, in The Volitional Brain, ed.

  B. Libet, A. Freeman, K. Sutherland (Exeter: Imprint Academic).

Watson, J.B. (1916), ‘Conditioned reflex in psychology’, Psychological Review, 13,

Watson, J.B. (1925), Behaviourism (New York: Norton).

Watson, J.B. (1927), ‘On the weakness of women’, Nation, July 6.

Watson, J.B. (1928), ‘On reconditioning people’, New York Times, March 4.

Watson, J.B.(1929),‘Why 50 years from now men won’t marry’,Cosmopolitan,June.

Watson, J.B., MacDougall,W. (1929), ‘The battle of behaviorism: An exposition and an exposure’, see

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/Battle/.

Watson, J.B., Rayner,R.(1928),The Psychological Care of Infant and Child (New York:Norton).(Reprinted by Arno Press, 1976).

Woodworth,R.S.,Schlossberg,H. (1954), Experimental psychology (Rev.Ed.) (New York: Holt,Rinehart&Winston).