Re: cognitive != observable? (project three)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dan 
michaels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dan michaels) wrote in message 
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
> > However, in the case that there might not be anything at all on the
> > reception side [something I doubt anyway] other than purely naiive
> > learning modules/circuitry, the baby being born with an inherent
> > facility for babbling could possibly be seen to "train" its own
> > reception circuitry. If you want to take this case, then the baby
> > babbling sounds going out the mouth would be received by the ear, and
> > these sounds would then be the natural "training set" for the learning
> > taking place on the reception side - along with any similar
> > reinforcing sounds from parents/etc. So, in this possible scenario,
> > the baby would actually be training its own brain using its innate
> > babbling ability - instinctual cktry trains generic-learning cktry.
> >
> > OTOH, personally I doubt the foregoing is the entire case, but rather
> > there is also some circuitry on the receptor side which is in some way
> > tuned to the babbling out the mouth side. Somehow it seems unlikely
> > that evolution would just build one side [babbling output] and not
> > build something complemetary on the other side ["matching" receptor
> > cktry of some sort], but you never know. I'm simply making up possible
> > and testable hypotheses. Neuroscience will figure it out one of these
> > days.
>
>
> Hey Bill, I notice you never responded to my long scenario, but it
> doesn't really matter. Just an idea.
>
> However, I did find the following in Pinker's book [which I haven't
> seen before, in fact], and which I thought was interesting, since it
> almost matches my previously ravings ....
>
> "... Why is babbling so important? ... the infant has been given a set
> of neural commands that can move the articulators every which way,
> with varying effects on the sound. By listening to their own babbling,
> babies in effect write their own instruction manual. they learn how
> much to move which muscle in which way to make which change in the
> sound ... this is a prerequisite to duplicating the speech of their
> parents..."
>
> The follwoing Pinker point is intersting:
>
> "... some computer scientists, inspired by the infant, believe that a
> good robot should learn an internal software model of its articulators
> by obseving the consequences of its own babbling and flailing ..."
>
> Imagine that.
>
> "

On a number of occasions you have been asked what you think it is that 
makes any of these assertions at odds with the sort of analysis given by 
Skinner regarding operants - and given the austerity of those analyses, 
ie that they point one to the *contingencies* which control such 
behaviour, why anyone should not look to that work rather than 
speculative notions couched in terms of 'production rules'.

For instance - have you ever looked into what schedules of reinforcement 
are?

Can you point to one or two which are used routinely?

Why are they preferable to alternative "cognitive" notions?

--
David Longley