"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au>
wrote in message
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-898CAD.22344604092007 from free.teranews.com...
> In article <46dae339$0$17757$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com>,
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your view, it seems to me, has points of contact with the behaviorist
>> view.
>> This view holds that complex human behavior is a product of classical
>> conditioning, operant conditioning, as well as simpler processes that are
>> observed when stimuli are simply presented repeatedly. It eschews the
>> notion
>> that behavior (human or otherwise) stems from a variety of more specific
>> modules. A bigger cortex might simply mean quantitative changes in a few
>> processes.
>> That's almost the opposite of our view.
Well, I'm sure you know your view, but I'm not sure you know mine. Indeed, I
still see points of contact, whether you do or not.
>Instead we argue that
> *qualitative* changes, "higher order" complexity in behaviour if you
> like, could come from quantitatively expanding the size of the cortex.
> I'd agree that there are specialised regions of the brain, I just don't
> think they need to be explicitly genetically specified to arise from an
> enlarged cortex.
This does not seem to me to be inconsistent with behaviorism. Perhaps you
don't understand behaviorism?
>Behaviourism and conditioning aren't really related to
> the arguments of the paper.
Needless to say, I disagree.
>I'd be happy to send you a PDF if you're
> interested.
I'll let you know.
\
>> Cheers, MK.
>> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com>
