Article View: bit.sci.purposive-behavior
Article #10643Modeling operant conditioning
From: William T. Powers
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:47
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:47
73 lines
4973 bytes
4973 bytes
Hi, Isaac -- CC: bourbon I've spent considerable time thinking about your diagram and the problem you're trying to solve. I realize once again why I have done so little modeling with reorganization. When you actually start figuring out what has to be modeled in the situation you describe, the problems simply multiply. One thing that helps is to put yourself inside the rat. Mary and I did that for a while this morning. She moved her finger around and whenever she made a move in the right direction, I said "click," meaning that water was now available. At first I said click for any move vaguely in the right direction. Then I demanded more and more, and eventually got her finger to touch the cup I had in mind as the "instrumental behavior." Then each time she touched the cup I said "click." She would run her finger over to where we sort of agreed the water was, then back to the cup to touch it again. Then I changed the "schedule" so two touches were required. She touched the cup -- no click! So immediately she touched it again and I said "Click" because that was two touches. About two trials later she was touching the cup twice in a row and getting a "click" right away. You might try this with a friend, both as experimenter as as subject. This process is known as shaping. It obviously depends on some rather complex processes going on in the rat, as well as an alert experimenter. The basic idea of reorganization still works -- as long as there's a deficit, changes in behavior continue; the changes cease only when the deficit is corrected. But for this to work, there must already be a lot of organized behavior available, and there's no real reason to think that simple random reorganization is the only operative factor. For example, after a "click," Mary would run her finger over to where the water was agreed to be, and then _back to where the finger was when the click occurred_. Do real rats do that? After the interruption of going to get the water or whatever, do they try to re-establish the conditions that held at the time the water was seen to be available, and continue the search from there? I've never seen any data on how rats behave while they're in the middle of finding out what it is that makes the water or food appear. Skinner just says that they emit behavior at random until a reinforcement selects one of the behaviors to be repeated. But it seems to me that there must be some very systematic rules in effect. The learning we see is a _capability of the rat_ and not an _effect of the environment on the rat_. But the concept of reinforcement makes intuitive sense. It does seem that as soon as the reinforcement occurs, there's a tendency to go back and repeat the same behavior that was going on when the reinforcement was first noticed. At least I think that happens; as I say, I don't know of any data. We could say that after the interruption of getting the reinforcement ingested, the control systems simply go back to the condition that fits the reference signals that were present at the time of the interruption -- maybe the reference signals simply haven't changed, but the control systems were just turned off for a moment to permit the reinforcer to be obtained, then turned on again, which would naturally bring the rat back into the original condition. Anyway, as you can see this is a far more complex situation than we have with E. coli, and you may be biting off a much bigger chunk than you realize. As Bill Leach said yesterday, one of the problems with explanation in psychology is using a very simple model to try to explain vastly complex processes. In trying to explain how a rat learns to press a bar to get water, we're jumping into the middle of a very large modeling problem, armed only with what we have guessed from E. coli. I really think that to explain this behavior, we're going to have to build up to it gradually, starting with much simpler problems. It may be that the E. coli approach really will work, but that we have to understand a lot more about multidimensional reorganization before we can see how it will work. Bill
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<01HNKW9QW8DU00027P@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VAXF.COLORADO.EDU!POWERS_WShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f6c09,91f725f505028289,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf6c09,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-02-28 09:47:14 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VAXF.COLORADO.EDU!POWERS_W Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: bit.sci.purposive-behavior X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu X-VMS-To: @CSG MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <01HNKW9QW8DU00027P@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:47:14 -0700 Sender: "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <CSG-L@UIUCVMD.BITNET> From: "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU> Subject: Modeling operant conditioning Lines: 72