GS (previous): The whole "robo-rat" thing could have been done with a couple
of small tone gemerators mounted on a small collar around the rats neck.
Oleg (previous): I don't think, so. Possibly at first time the rat will pay
attention to the sounds, but then it will ignore them.
Again it only matter of experiments.
GS: Don't ever go into the animal-training business. Let's say we mount two
(radio -controlled) tone generators (one on the L. and one on the R.) And a
small relay (radio -controlled) that makes an audible click. The tones would
be established as discriminative stimuli, and the click as a conditioned
reinforcer. The rat could be trained to turn left or right depending on the
tone, and correct responses would result in the click. Some unconditioned
reinforcer (sweetened condensed milk, for example - rat's love it) would, of
course, be presented when the animal finished a series of movements - at
first just a few, but the length of the response "chain" could be gradually
extended until the rat was executing hundreds of responses. People who train
animals for entertainment purposes do similar things, and in the laboratory
long chains of behavior are established that result in a single
unconditioned reinforcer after an hour or more and sometimes tens of
thousands of responses (i.e., with "second-order" schedules of
reinforcement).
"Oleg" <ingenuous at mail.ru> wrote in message
news:3fe91fdd.0401230018.52a3c675 at posting.google.com...
> GS:
> The whole "robo-rat" thing could have been done with a couple of small
> tone gemerators mounted on a small collar around the rats neck.
>> Oleg:
> I don't think, so. Possibly at first time the rat will pay attention
> to the sounds, but then it will ignore them.
> Again it only matter of experiments.
>> GS:
> I don't see the "robo-rat" thing as relevant to training human
> children
>> Oleg:
> I wouldn't want to make an implantation even to an animal brain.
>> GS:
> There is not a single thing new about the robo-rat stuff except the
> small electronics. Otherwise, its 1950 technology, with basic
> behavioral principles. It's hype.
>> Oleg:
> Technology is technology. Principles are principles. The result is the
> result.
>> GS:
> Well, to some extent, that contradicts what you seemed to say earlier.
>> Oleg:
> How much to use pleasure and how much punishment - choice of those who
> will make it. All three methods are possible and they can be changed
> in time.
>> GS:
> Once again, all of the scientific knowledge necessary for what you say
> was known by 1956.
>> Oleg:
> It was written even earlier: One step of real movement is more
> important than dozen of programs.
> You yourself gave an example how fruitless can be using the scientific
> knowledge known by 1956. I mean the rat directed by sounds. (If it
> will work, I will take the words back)
>> GS:
> And, yes, many people have suggested exactly what you did (although
> somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
>> Oleg:
> I'd like to know, excluding philosophical stuff.
>>>>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<89cfcd42e95529dbd203b37565fe1df8 at news.teranews.com>...
> > Oleg: 1. Because all, who taste it, prefer brain stimulation to any
> > conventional one.
> > The experiment with the robo-rat would be impossible, if it were
> > directed conventionally.
> >
> > GS: I'm not sure that the first is true. I don't see the "robo-rat"
thing as
> > relevant to training human children. There were certain logistical
aspects
> > of the robo-rat problem that made ESB attractive. Still, with the right
> > training regimen one could reinforce long segments of behavior with
> > conditioned reinforcers. The whole "robo-rat" thing could have been done
> > with a couple of small tone gemerators mounted on a small collar around
the
> > rats neck. There is not a single thing new about the robo-rat stuff
except
> > the small electronics. Otherwise, its 1950 technology, with basic
behavioral
> > principles. It's hype.
> >
> > Oleg: 2. Certainly.
> >
> > GS: Well, to some extent, that contradicts what you seemed to say
earlier.
> >
> > Oleg: 3 / 4 Do you want to say that there is not novelty in my idea?
> >
> > GS: Pretty much so. It is 1950s technology, and basic knowledge of the
> > definition of reinforcement and punishment. And there's no need to use
it -
> > ESB, that is.
> >
> > Oleg: I.e. that it all can be founded in the works of behaviouralists.
Must
> > be.
> >
> > GS: Once again, all of the scientific knowledge necessary for what you
say
> > was known by 1956. And, yes, many people have suggested exactly what you
did
> > (although somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Glen
> >
> > "Oleg" <ingenuous at mail.ru> wrote in message
