1 / 34

Activity & reactivity

Activity & reactivity. Activity. Reactivity. 2.Result. 1.Stimulus. 2.Reaction. 1.Action. 1. 1. 2. “ Mechanical ” determination - Reactivity “ Teleological ” determination - Activity M. Bunge. Activity. Reactivity. 2.Result. 1.Stimulus. 2.Reaction. 1.Action. 1. 1. 2.

marlon
Download Presentation

Activity & reactivity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Activity &reactivity

  2. Activity Reactivity 2.Result 1.Stimulus 2.Reaction 1.Action 1 1 2

  3. “Mechanical” determination - Reactivity “Teleological” determination - Activity M. Bunge

  4. Activity Reactivity 2.Result 1.Stimulus 2.Reaction 1.Action 1 1 2

  5. Regularities explaining the behavior of a stone are quite sufficient to explain human behavior. The role of such general law was played by the connection between stimulus and reaction. Z.Y. Kuo The fundamental error of the concept of purpose and the trial and error fallacy. Psychol. Rev. 1928, 35, 417. Not only living organisms react to an external influence, but non-living matter as well. V.M.Behterev Objective psychology, Moscow, Science Press, 1991, 21 Human and Rock

  6. Activity Reactivity 2.Result 1.Stimulus 2.Reaction 1.Action 1 1 2

  7. N.A. Bernstein 1896 - 1966 Essays on the physiologyof movements and physiology of activity, 1966, Moscow: Meditsina

  8. In the framework of two different concepts, the same set of data poses as different facts. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, 1958. London, Routledge 1891 - 1976

  9. Thus an idea occurred to me that basically everything in the world is subjective – and no exceptions. What a blow it was! My life and my views, 1968. New York, Scribner. Max Born 1882-1970

  10. Heisenberg Werner 1901-1976 While collecting facts requires precise accurate experimental work, systematization of facts appears successful only when one can feel rather then analyze an event.

  11. ACTIVITY = motivational reflex

  12. TIME! NOT LOCATION

  13. Time Paradox In explaining the existence or properties of an object by appeal to a future goal or a function that is only later realized, teleological explanations seem to get the temporal order wrong: they explain the present by appeal to the future.

  14. HISTORY

  15. I.P. Pavlov 1849 - 1936

  16. Aristotle explained a variety of physical and biological phenomena by appeal to final causes. • The final cause explains ‘that for the sake of which’ something is the case by supplying a function or goal, also called a teleological or functional explanation. • Today we continue to invoke final causes in a variety of contexts. • T. Lombrozo, Carey S. Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 2005, p.2 Aristotel (384-322 years BC) “Men do not think they know a thing till they have grasped the ‘why’ of it (which is to grasp its primary cause).” Aristotle (Physics, II.3.194B17)

  17. As critics such as Galileo, Bacon and Descartes were well aware—final causalitydoes not appear in Aristotle’s natural philosophy as a module that can be detached and discarded without harm to the rest. It is, rather—and rather more so than is generally understood—the key to a network of concepts that stands or falls as a whole. • The early modern rejection of final causality, accordingly, was the rejection of this whole network. • Mirus C. V. ARISTOTLE’S TELEOLOGY AND MODERN MECHANICS. A Dissertation, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2004. Aristotel (384-322 years BC)

  18. N. Bohr 1885 - 1962 Renaissance REACTIVITY vs ACTIVITY

  19. ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY TRUE REALITY Novalis(1772-1801) - PSEUDONYM FOR German Romantic poet FRIEDRICH LEOPOLD, BARON VON HARDENBERG,1926, 403 Cited by B.M. Velichkovsky, Memory, 2005, 405

  20. Now we witness the new phase of science shifting from “stimulus-based” to “teleological” and “holistic” determinism, to establishing of systemic views and to emphasis on activity. • This tendency hasn’t yet become the mainstream of science development, but it receives the growing support from leading researchers.

  21. Regularities explaining the behavior of a stone are quite sufficient to explain human behavior. The role of such general law was played by the connection between stimulus and reaction. Z.Y. Kuo The fundamental error of the concept of purpose and the trial and error fallacy. Psychol. Rev. 1928, 35, 417. Not only living organisms react to an external influence, but non-living matter as well. V.M.Behterev Objective psychology, Moscow, Science Press, 1991, 21 Human and Rock

  22. Rock and Human “Movements of physical bodies, such as rocks, are explained by external forces. Such external factors are referred to as “causes”. By contrast, many human movements are distinguished from the movements of rocks by having explanations in terms of not just causes but “reasons”. We describe human movements as “actions” directed towards a goal for a purpose.” (pg. 33) Schall J.D. Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 2001, 2, 33-42.

  23. Anticipatory Systems:ReinventionRobert Rosen [http://www.anticipation.info/] • Without exception (in my experience), all models and theories of biological systems are reactive • An anticipatory system is a system whose current state is determined by a future state. “The cause lies in the future” • An anticipatory system is a system containing a predictive model of itself and/or of its environment that allows it to change state at an instant in accord with the model’s predictions pertaining to a later instant • The “reactive paradigm”, as we may call it, was grossly deficient in dealing with systems of this kind • Any system behavior can be simulated by a purely reactive system. We can only speak of simulation, and not of explanation, of our system’s behavior in these terms

  24. DYNAMIC PREDICTIONS:OSCILLATIONS AND SYNCHRONY INTOP–DOWN PROCESSINGA. K. Engel, P. Fries, W. SingerNATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2001, V.2. Many aspects of cognition andbehaviour are not stimulus driven in a reflex-like manner,but are to a large degree based on expectations. This anticipatory nature of neural activity patterns isattracting increasing interest in systems neuroscience.

  25. Cartesian paradigm“nobody espouses but almost everybody tends to think in terms of” [1993, pg. 144] Daniel C. Dennett

  26. DYNAMIC PREDICTIONS:OSCILLATIONS AND SYNCHRONY INTOP–DOWN PROCESSINGA. K. Engel, P. Fries, W. SingerNATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2001, V.2. Many aspects (!) of cognition andbehaviour are not stimulus driven in a reflex-like manner,but are to a large degree based on expectations. This anticipatory nature of neural activity patterns isattracting increasing interest in systems neuroscience.

  27. It is the commonly held belief that animals in general and insects in particular are but input/output machines: if one only knew all their sensory input, one could predict the behavioral output they would produce. • This basic tenet not only guides basic neurobiological research but has been the foundation for a great many robotic applications. • Our results contradict this view. Order in Spontaneous Behavior Björn Brembs, Alexander Maye and Uwe Greggers Presented at the 2005 Neuroscience meeting in Washington, DC.

  28. Order in Spontaneous Behavior Björn Brembs, Alexander Maye and Uwe Greggers Presented at the 2005 Neuroscience meeting in Washington, DC.

  29. Stimulus ReactionToday A fundamental issue in neurobiology is how sensory stimuli guide motor behavior Ranulfo Romo & Emilio Salinas. Sensing and deciding in the somatosensory system// Current Opinion in Neurobilogy 1999, 9: 487-493

  30. Eclectism “Phylogenetic”eclecticism “Ontogenetic” eclecticism “Level”eclecticism “Anatomical” eclecticism • eclecticism [from Gr. eklektikos=to choose], the selection of elements from different systems of thought, without regard to possible contradictions between the systems

  31. “Phylogenetic” and “Ontogenetic” eclecticism Unlikeprimitive organisms, humans are active, rather than reactive, beings. E. Goldberg. The executive brain. Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. Oxfrod Univ. Press. 2001, p.124 Through evolution and during the course of ontogeny, there is transition from reflexive, involuntary behaviors to voluntary and purposeful behaviors… Carolyn A Ristau. In: Evolution of social behavior and integrative levels, 1988.

  32. Eclectism “Phylogenetic”eclecticism “Ontogenetic” eclecticism “Level”eclecticism “Anatomical” eclecticism • eclecticism [from Gr. eklektikos=to choose], the selection of elements from different systems of thought, without regard to possible contradictions between the systems

More Related