[From Bruce Abbott (951209.2250 EST)]
Bill Powers (951208.2015 MST) --
As to the labelling problem, there isn't one as long as you mean a
controlled perception when you say "pressing" or "eating," and realize
that the actions which bring these perceptions about can't properly be
called pressing or eating. What you see, as an external observer, are
the actions. To see the consequences as pressing or eating, you have to
apply a perceptual function of your own to what you see going on. If
it's the same one the rat is using, good. If not, you're
misinterpreting.
I know what you're going to say: "operant."
O.K., I'll say it: "operant."
One day you'll realize that
explaining the operant is the prime problem that conventional psychology
(of any kind) has failed to solve. Maybe you realize it already. How am
I supposed to know, unless once in a while to talk as if you do?
Well, I do understand the problem posed by the operant, but that problem has
been solved. Man, where have you been? Get with it!
I'll give you a hint. What kind of system achieves consistent ends through
variable means? If an operant is defined a a class of variable means having
a common end, what kind of a system produces operants?
Regards,
Bruce