Archive for ‘The Beginnings of Scientific Psychology (Part III-B)’

In Chapter 20, there is a section that discusses artificial intelligence: “a special branch of computer science that investigates the extent to which the mental powers of human beings can be captured by means of machines” (628-29).  There are those that argue relative degrees of how “intelligent” a computer can be.  The stance I agreed with the most was by John Searle.  Searle understood that computers only process symbols that humans give to them; therefore, if computers merely manipulate symbolic formulas, then true understanding and cognitive learning can never take place.  Computers do not have the ability to reason, because to reason means to involve an emotional aspect to the equation that a computer can never register. There is a study that shows that our brains do work extremely similarly to computers in that we too take symbols, recode them, and store then give symbolic output of our own.  However, computers will never be on the same reasoning spectrum as a human.  Isaac Asimov, an extremely popular science fiction writer, loved the idea of machines making it to the realm of humanity.  This is seen especially in works such as I, Robot and The Bicentennial Man and I highly recommend his works if you are interested in the realm of mechanism or artificial intelligence.

During the last few classes we have really hit on some interesting concepts.  Are we simply reactive organisms based on our genetic and biological makeup, are we simply remodeling the behaviors that we have witnessed all of our lives by reacting to our environments, or are we by products of the way we think and categorize cognitively?  Or are we the sum of all of these parts, is our biology a re-enforcer to our faith or an inhibitor?  I would like to take a second and look at a couple of interesting thoughts.

Josh Hamilton

I have to take a second and explain my overall joy and enthusiasm for our very own Texas Rangers, I grew up in and around Baseball and have always loved it.  I played when I was younger and I always collected the cards.  When we are looking at what makes a champion some people would argue that its sheer performance, others would say that attitude and their public persona defines how the world looks at them.  Take a look at Josh Hamilton, he finished the 2010 regular season as the American League batting champion and had the highest ERA of any other baseball player this year in Major League baseball.  A biological viewpoint of what has made him a champion may be due to a above average reaction time.  When an average major league pitcher throws the ball from the pitchers mound it is usually thrown at around 95 miles an hour.  This means that from the time the ball leaves the pitchers hand it takes it about four tenths of a second to travel the sixty feet to the catcher glove.  This leaves the average baseball player about two tenths of a second to react and swing the bat.  The batter must take several things into account, where the ball is going, how fast, is it curving, is it dropping, or most important it hittable and is it going to be a strike. All of this must be accessed in a flash, that is why it is sometimes said that baseball is actually played on the outside edge of human perception.

Click Here to see if you could hit a Major League Fastball

Hamilton however operates even faster than average, so did he ultimately become a All-Star MLB player due to his biological responses, in other words, could he have ever been anything else other than at athlete?  Hamilton is well known for his nearly career ending lapse into drug and alcoholic abuse that completely consumed him.  His rehabilitation and recovery all started by a confrontation from his grandmother who sought to intervene on his behalf.  Now clean, Hamilton travels the county telling his story and trying to encourage all forms of drug and alcohol avoidance.  He explains his rehabilitation as a “God thing”, which would suggest that somewhere something more than biology plays a role in our decision making.  The sum of what makes him who he is is the characteristics that make him a champion. GO RANGERS!!

There is a great deal to be learned from Bandura’s experiment about social learning. Comments such as “children are sponges” come to mind. The truth is that if children learn from all that they are exposed to, and are not provided with the appropriate guidance to productively process the information, children will be left with nothing but to act directly as they have seen, right or wrong. When initially exposed to something, even for adults, mimicry is the best way to get adjusted. For children however, almost everyhting is new. There is not any prior knowledge to be drawn from to determine how to react in a new situation. Also, I believe that there is something to be said for the concept of children being taught to respect adn listen to adults, shich admitedly would not factor in until a later age, but it should still be considered a potential factor in why children default to mimicking adults without question. It is also interesting to note that the children mimicked the complete stranger in the video. What does that then imply for a child who grows up in a home where he hears foul language all the time, or witnesses domestic violece regularly; it is no longer a stranger who is demonstrating activities. It has become the child’s very own parent to whom he or she has a much stronger connection. That is just a thought of possible rammifications implied by the existence fo thsi principle.

I remember as a kid always wanting to watch the cartoon TV show The Jetsons. The flying cars that drove themselves, the closets that dressed whoever stepped inside, and the moving sidewalks always fascinated me and could keep my attention for hours. I remember wishing that the world the Jetson family lived in was real life, seeing as it was a lot more interesting than my parents’ Chevy Suburban and plain brick house. Well, it seems thanks to artificial intelligence, the world the Jetsons lived in could be right around the corner, at least when it comes to cars.

According to our book, artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as a “special branch of computer science that investigates the extent to which the mental powers of human beings can be captured by means of machines.” People who only believe in weak AI believe that a computer will only ever be able to simulate the human mind. On the other hand, believers of strong AI believe that a computer could actually duplicate the mind. This idea of artificial intelligence was first tested by Turing with an experiment where a computer and an actual human response were alternatively given to an interrogator. If the interrogator was unable to consistently determine the human response, the computer, according to the test, could be said to think. Nowadays, studying the idea of artificial intelligence has been taken over by Google, and what an interesting experiement it has been. Copy and paste the link below to read an article from only a few days ago about how Google has created a car that can drive itself. Yes its been tested, and yes it works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html

How crazy is that? The idea of strong artificial intelligence is closer than we think. How do you feel about the idea of cars driving themselves? Do you think a machine will make less mistakes than a human?

Two years ago I took cognition and learning and in that class we watched the bobo experiments video. When we did so our professor asked us how the learning described here was different and even contradictory to the ideas found in other theories. I ventured a guess and I was right. I love being right and when I’m right about something I remember it for along time which also has the effect of making me think a lot about the subject that was at hand at the time, so in this case social learning theory. The right answer was because there was no necessarily designated reinforcement. That idea has been a sem-frequent subject of my thoughts ever since.

Is that true? In social learning is there no reinforcement? I have never been able to get away from the idea that there might be, which I know is just ridiculous because I’m just not about to know better than Bandura. Still though, I think about it often. It seems like there is reinforcement and the only difference is that it is internal. When I see something done that I like and I recreate it then I usually like the way I feel when I do it. I feel cool. Is this not a reinforcement? I have no idea, but I think there’s at least minimal debate over this that takes place that I’m not a part of so I don’t feel too ridiculous for wondering this.

As I read over William James’ “maxims to follow in order to develop good habits and develop good ones” I found myself thinking that they seemed like common sense and wondering how they applied to addictions. James believed that instinctive behavior is modifiable by experience and thus habits are formed. The five ways to form good habit/ break the bad are as follows: surround yourself in a good environment, do not lapse, go all out- do not start slowly, do not talk about it- be about it, and make yourself keep at forming good habits/ breaking bad habits even when it is hard.
To me these seemed like they would go hand in hand with breaking addictions. However when I looked further into 12-step programs, they were not as similar as I would have thought. The APA says that there are 6 basic elements to all 12-step programs: admitting that one cannot control one’s addiction, recognizing a greater power that can give strength, examining past errors with the help of a sponsor, making amends for these errors, learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior, and helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.
The steps that James was lacking had much to do with the emotional side of altering ones behavior while the 12-step programs focused more on emotion and less on behavioral steps to quitting. It would be interesting to me to know how effective James’ method was in regard to battling addiction in comparison to 12-step programs. It is my opinion that without the focus on behavioral modifications, at least in the beginning, the program would not be as successful.

So a concept that really grabbed my attention, amongst many others, was behaviorism. To be more specific, on the ideals of how everything we do, essentially, is an imitation or trait picked up by someone else. We go through life just, “going through the motions,” to insert a horrible pun, or at least the same motions that others have shown us before that we deem as either useful or acceptable. An even sadder thought to come across is the fact that we will do things without thinking really about why we do them, or at least what is inferred but generally accepted in behaviorism.

I personally believe that, although it is not the central focus of why we perform different tasks and think different ways, that behaviorism plays a very big part in our social norms, customs, and just life in general. We don’t go out kicking people in the shins, for example, randomly throughout the day at ACU. This would be deemed as socially inappropriate and therefore would negatively affect our social status and make us somewhat of an outcast for our actions. In fact, there are many actions not suitable for an ACU student to do merely because of the fact that we feel it is wrong. However, I feel it is only wrong because we view others as not performing it because it is wrong, so to speak.

Now up to this point, I’ve pointed out most things that are pretty negative being controlled, somewhat, by our ability to mimic and assimilate other peoples behaviors and views of right and wrong. This being said, it seems pretty acceptable to do this, right? However, what if Society required one person to die every day? Or every month? Every year? To the point where every year you just started killing off the people around you, with the only reasoning as to why you do it is, “we’ve done it for years.” This concept was brought to life in a 2006 movie, “Population 436.” This movie takes place in a town that will ALWAYS have a population of 436, no matter what. In order to keep this, every year the town looks at the current population. Then they get everyone up to a festival where the people draw from a box random raffles, and those with the black raffle must be executed immediately. When asked why they performed this ritual, every person in town said, “It’s what our Ancestor’s did,” or, “everyone is doing it,” essentially. After seeing this movie, I see behaviorism as being a blessed curse, because it can keep the peace in a culture, and it can also damage it and people individually as well.

Chapter 20 of our textbook outlines some very interesting concepts about artificial intelligence, such as the Turing test and the argument of strong versus weak artificial intelligence. According to the text, artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as a “special branch of computer science that investigates the extent to which the mental powers of human beings can be captured by means of machines.” Scholars in this field have been debating the potential “humanness” a machine currently possesses or will possess for the last fifty or sixty years. Proponents of weak AI claim that a computer will only ever be able to simulate a human mind, whereas proponents of strong AI claim that computers actually duplicate the mind. Turing sought to answer the question, “Can machines think?” with an experiment where a computer and an actual human response were alternatively given to an interrogator. If the interrogator was unable to consistently determine the human response, the computer, according to the test, could be said to think.

So what do you think? Will true artificial intelligence ever be realized? Is a machine’s ability to mimic human behavior or characteristics enough to classify it as a thinking being, or are there other factors that need to be considered as well? I know this is kind of random, but what about the issue of cloning (if that’s ever possible), would clones fall under the heading of natural or artificial or neither?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reification.jpg

I have always found it amazing how the mind works especially when it comes to the laws of perception. Like the law of continuity which states that a pattern might be seen among items that are near each other. such as a picture of what appears to be two squares one partially behind the other but really its one square with an “L” shaped figure next to it. Why does the mind try to simplify what it see’s. This baffles me as I am a very analytical person and often over complicate thing as I look at them, not necessarily what  objects, but more peoples choices and and scenarios. In any case I find it interesting that my mind would simplify one thing while complicating another. One could argue for evolutionary psychology I suppose, and say that simplifying objects that we see could come from a suspicion of dark objects that could be either prey or predator lying in wait in the habitat, while the complication of peoples choices could come from a suspicion of people in order to predetermine if they are a threat. Not necessarily my view, but just a thought. Also, why do some people have an inability to analyze what they see, like the picture of the vase made out of two faces looking at one another on page 468 of our text? Some people can see both points of view right off the back while others will struggle even after its been pointed out. The same goes for analyzing a conversation why do some perform such things and others could careless?

Four years ago when I first took introduction to psychology, Albert Bandura and his research both shocked and fascinated me. One of his experiments that struck me the most was the Bobo doll experiment. The experiment, a clip of which is provided in this post, involved children observing others act aggressively towards a doll and then acting in the same manner observed on their own accord. This experiment made such a deep impact on me because I would say my whole life revolves around children and as such the subject matter concerned me greatly. The reaches of Bandura’s various experiments, such as the Bobo Doll experiment, extends to the learning that is occurring because of the entertainment that our children are viewing today. Movies such as Saw come to mind that perhaps very young children are not viewing, but children in their early teens are most certainly viewing. These early teens, I would argue, lack the mental capacities to process such violent information in an adult like manner because their brain, their frontal lobe in particular, is not fully developed. Not only do children in their early teens lack the mental capacities to process such violence, but they are also learning many negative things, aggression for example, from the violence they are viewing (as is everyone else watching these disgusting films). According to the social learning perspective of Bandura in reference to aggression “human beings are not born with a large array of aggressive responses at their disposal. Rather, they must acquire these… through direct experience or by observing the behavior of others” (Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2008, p. 340). Not only do humans learn aggression from the observation of others, but whether or not someone will act in an aggressive manner is dependent on many factors including the person’s past observed experience with aggression (Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2008, p. 340). Therefore, if a person observes aggression either directly or vicariously, through such movies as Saw or video games such as Grand Theft Auto, they are more inclined to act aggressively imitating the behavior they observed. That is not to say they will act aggressively because many factors go into aggression besides social learning, but they are more inclined to act aggressively. As someone who hopes to be a mother in the future, the possibility for social learning to be detrimental to my future children is unsettling to say the least. It brings to bear questions of how to raise my future children. For example, in an attempt to shelter my children from the harmful effects of social learning through the entertainment industry should I forbid all such materials? On the other hand, if I do forbid all such materials how much will my children rebel in response to being sheltered? I am not sure of the answers to either of these questions. Fortunately, the observational learning that I did of my parents actions in raising me and my brothers provides a very balanced example. They kept me sheltered, but not so sheltered that I would want to rebel. Hopefully, I can be as good of a parent. In summary, the implication for daily life, such as how to raise one’s children, due to research by individuals like Albert Bandura affects not only the science of Psychology, but also the private sector. Isn’t that one of the beautiful things about Psychology, as humans and the way they interact with each other are more deeply understood it gives the informed individual power to affect their environment more positively (or negatively as the case may be).

Bobo Doll Clip