[FRIAM] Movement vs. Behavior, and what's in the Black Box
Prof David West
profwest at fastmail.fm
Tue Jun 17 09:53:26 EDT 2025
Nick,
I have never heard you state your behaviorism in quite this way:* "I think that behaviorism is a way carving the world into objects and environments (ahem) and that rocks behave. Then the distinction beween rocks and organisms would emerge as a distinction between objeccts that manage their environments and objects that dont." *
It has some seeming parallels to definitions/descriptions I frequently borrow from Ludwig von Bertalannfy.
**A system (any/every) is a set of elements and the relations among them.**
**
**
**An element is differentiated and defined based on its behavior—its "contribution" to the system.**
I use 'Object' as a synonym for 'Element', and establish a single way to describe objects, be they abstract (an account), an inanimate (copier machine), human (in a role), or a software/hardware Artifact. The apparent dualism (element — relation) in the definition is, in software, is eliminated by embodying 'relations' in behavioral objects.
Two big differences: I do not distinguish between objects and "environments" and no object is allowed to "manage," "control," "manipulate," or "violate the encapsulation" of any other object.
There must be some essential differences in our concepts of "Behavior," else we have been talking past each other all these many years.
davew
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025, at 10:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Eric,
>
> It's a dead pigeon that we throw out the window. I wouldnt waste a perfectly good dead duck on such an experiment.
>
> I cant decide if the dead pigeon is the limit of behavior or if is behavior. I think it is behavior. I think that behaviorism is a way carving the world into objects and environments (ahem) and that rocks behave. Then the distinction beween rocks and organisms would emerge as a distinction between objeccts that manage their environments and objects that dont.
>
> n
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:07 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jon,
>> This is a great expansion of the issue, and it might take me a bit to build up to an adequate response.
>>
>> You are definitely right that "scale" is one of many dimensions we might look at when evaluating whether or not something is a behavior. The evaluation of whether or not something is behaving involves comparisons, and those comparisons have to be "fair" in some sense that suggests a "domain". For example, if we drop a dead duck out a window, and then agree that falling in that fashion does not evidence behavior, we wouldn't want to then move to a coin-drop in water (where the coin spins and slides erratically, moving down at various speeds) and assert the coin was alive because it's movement didn't look like the dead-duck's movement.
>>
>> Does that get us anywhere?
>>
>>
>> -----------
>> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
>> Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
>> American University - Adjunct Instructor
>>
<mailto:echarles at american.edu>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:58 PM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Glen, Eric,
>>>
>>> I am enjoying how the conversation is developing. The celery
>>> example strikes me as being important, but where Glen refers
>>> to *scale* I would speak of *domain of definition*. That a shift in
>>> domain happens to be size, rather than some other contextual
>>> specification, may not be what we want. If this isn't the case
>>> Glen, please let me know. With respect to Eric's points it seems
>>> fair to me to say that a paddle wheel is behaving, but perhaps not
>>> in the *larger* context of the river. The celery is behaving, but not
>>> not in the *smaller* context of capillary action. Here I am using
>>> the language of *large* and *small*, but perhaps other modalities
>>> have a place as well. One can say Nick's behavior appears
>>> spontaneously, but in fact was necessitated by something *prior*.
>>> Here an *earlier* Nick could play the role of the river.
>>>
>>> Frank,
>>> Would you say that the mind is as public as RSA encryption?
>>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ...
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> --
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
> nthompson at clarku.edu
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20250617/74d6d3c4/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list