"Benjamin" <Benjamin from verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nWvUh.3178$k7.2131 from trndny05...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4622691e$0$15026$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...>> | 1.) I've not retracted anything I said.
>> You said that the "pigeon always pecks
> red".
>> Then, after I told you I'd read the =Britan-
> nica= ref., you said that the "pigeon doesn't
> always peck red".
No, you are a liar. But can someone as insane as you really be said to lie?
I said several times that the pigeon pecks red unless the amount of the
large, delayed reinforcer was very, very large. Since I was always saying
that, it goes without saying that your quote from Britannica meant nothing.
Again, the simplest of findings concerning the behavior of animals in
circumscribed environments can not be predicted by you, despite the fact
that you claim time and time again to be able to explain complex behavior in
individuals and cultures. You can't. You are simply insane. And, I might
add, probably quite violent. Isn't that why you were incarcerated - at least
a few of the times? Did you ever beat up Mum and Dad, Ken?
>> " 'dancing backwards' " -- because of stuff
> I discuss below.
>> | 2.) The notion that behavior cannot
> | be studied in the laboratory is stupid.
>> Quoting from:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_psychology> "Some behaviorists argue simply that the observation of behavior is the
> best, or most convenient way of investigating psychological, and mental
> processes. Others believe that it is in fact the only way of investigating
> such processes, while still others argue that behavior itself is the only
> appropriate subject of psychology, and that common psychological terms
> (belief, objectives, etc.) have no referents and/or only refer to
> behavior.
> Those taking this point of view sometimes refer to their field of study as
> behavior analysis or behavioral science rather than psychology."
>> | 3.) You haven't contributed one
> | thing to science or philosophy.
> |
> | <snip>
>> Well, there is the "one thing" that you've
> "<snip>"-ed, which is the most-Significant
> "one thing" that's ever been communicated
> during the entire History of Science.
>> I =want-not= to 'take-advantage' of your ab-
> sence-of-understanding.
>> But you've 'resorted' to writing Libelous
> stuff with respect to my person, and, in
> the hope that doing so will give-you-Reas-
> on to never-again do so, I'd like to explain
> to you why you so routinely do such is be-
> cause your nervous system is 'moving
> away from' "rendering useless" [AoK,
> Ap8] with respect to that with which
> you've come to be 'familiar' during the
> course of your prior experience -- be-cause
> all your nervous system does is 'strive',
> 'blindly' and automatically, to achieve TD
> E/I-minimization 'within' itself, and any-
> thing that 'moves away from' 'behaviorism'
> elevates TD E/I 'within' your nervous sys-
> tem.
>> This sort of neural-information-process-
> ing dynamic occurs routinely with re-
> spect to relatively-cloistered group-wise
> interactive dynamics such as happens
> when folks relatively-delimit their exper-
> ience to a "laboratory" ['stop' observing
> when they are outside of their "laboratori-
> es"] and then try to 'explain' everything [in-
> "lab", or not] through the lens of what
> they've experienced in the "lab".
>> If you look, you'll see that Directionality is
> =Completely= mapped, in the above, with
> respect to TD E/I 'within' your nervous sys-
> tem.
>> You do your Libelous stuff be-cause, when
> some external stuff "induces" [AoK, Ap5]
> TD E/I(up) 'within' your nervous system, you
> literally experience such as an 'attack against
> your person'.
>> So, your nervous system "inverts" [AoK, Ap4]
> the TD E/I that's occurring 'within' it [which it
> can do be-cause of the stuff you "<snip>"-ed],
> and re-Directs it =in the Direction= from which
> your nervous system has [literally] calculated
> [AoK, Ap6] the environmental source of the
> "induced" TD E/I(up), which, in this case, was
> 'me'.
>> But I =wasn't= 'attacking' you.
>> I did know how our 'interaction' would go be-
> cause I knew that all =anyone= can do is re-
> iterate the stuff you've "<snip>"-ed, or that
> I'd end-up reiterating the stuff you've "<snip>"-
> ed.
>> But I was Genuinely-interested in the un-
> folding process, not in the least because
> it'd allow me to gain experience with respect
> to the Problem of explaining 'behaviorism' in
> terms of the nervous-system dynamics that
> are Reified in NDT.
>> As a result of our 'interaction', I not only
> learned how to do such, I also learned
> a useful method of programming it in
> machines.
>> I'm Grateful for this, Glen.
>> But in matters of Science, I 'move toward'
> Truth.
>> Period.
>> ['Everybody' knows that about me -- be-
> cause, in order to Guard folks Free Wills,
> I 'had to' explain to folks that that's all I do.]
>> I'm curious, though... did you decide to
> 'jump' me of your own volition, or did
> someone else 'put-you-up-to' doing so?
>> k. p. collins
>>>
