(In Volume One Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed a new, more correct worldview which could help bring about a better world and ensure the future survival of the human race. In Volume Two Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed how the many critical social/environmental problems of our present world can be understood, and a solution found, on the basis of that new worldview. In this volume they discuss a very powerful 'tool' that provides a means to help solve all of the world's problems, and bring about a future of peace and love. )
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have covered much in our discussion so far. We have covered in some detail a new, positive, more accurate worldview. We have looked at how the old worldview has been responsible for the world's many social problems, and how solutions to these problems are offered by this new worldview. Where should we go from here?
TINNY: I guess the next logical step is to devise a plan by which the social problems facing humanity could be solved and find a means by which that plan could be carried out.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can all that be done?
TINNY: It can.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Never in human history has change on such a grand scale been attempted. You are talking about changing every aspect of human life; every institution, every social structure, all social behaviour, all attitudes, and all beliefs.
TINNY: There will not only be changes in the social structure of the human race, but also changes in every individual. These changes will affect the thoughts, words, and deeds of every person on this planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you really do all that?
TINNY: No, I could not do all that. These changes will be brought about by billions of people acting together. I alone can do little more than attempt to change my own life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But isn't it this knowledge and these ideas you have presented which will bring about the change in world society?
TINNY: That is true. It is this knowledge and these ideas which will change the world, but this knowledge and these ideas are not mine. They have envolved from the developing human race. They belong to everyone. Whether or not I speak these words and profess these truths, they exist as part of the heritage of the human race. If we are to have a future it will include these ideas and this knowledge regardless of whether I speak these truths or not. As the natural unfolding of the material universe takes place there is a moment when these truths will be first expressed, then fully assimilated. My words are only one possible beginning to the full expression of these truths. The human race has reached the level of development which provides the conditions necessary for these essential truths to become manifested. Humanity will soon fully know these truths.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could anything stop these truths from being known throughout human society?
TINNY: Only the destruction of the human race could stop the development, expression, and spread of these ideas and this knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say if you do not speak these truths they will be said by others. If others speak these truths will they be presented in the same way you offer them? Will the knowledge be presented in the same words? Will the ideas be the same?
TINNY: Every individual is different. No other person would present these truths exactly as I would. The knowledge would not be presented in the same words and the ideas would not be exactly the same. Some presentations of these truths would be quite similar and some would vary greatly. This matters not at all. All individual variations in presentation would result in the one basic truth being known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will everyone accept your particular means of presentation?
TINNY: Certainly not in the beginning. People will evaluate my words on the basis of their past learning and beliefs. Each will interpret these truths in a manner personal to themselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this good? Wouldn't it be better if everyone accepted the truths as you present them?
TINNY: No one should ever accept these truths or any others uncritically. It is our nature at the human level to each perceive things differently. It is my hope that when people hear my words they will find support for the truths which they have come to know in their own way. I don't want everyone to think as I think. What is important is that we all have a common basis for our different ways of thinking.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When I consider the enormous change which will take place in human society as this new worldview becomes widely known, I can't help but worry that this change will be accompanied by great turmoil.
TINNY: Change of such revolutionary nature is always accompanied by great turmoil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you call this change revolutionary, do you mean you are proposing a revolution?
TINNY: I try never shy away from truthful words. I am most definitely proposing a revolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you are a revolutionary.
TINNY: I am a revolutionary.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't it scare some people away from these ideas if they know you are a revolutionary?
TINNY: Do I seem very scary?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's hard to imagine anyone being afraid of you.
TINNY: No one should be afraid of this revolution either.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say that? Revolutions have always been carried out by violence.
TINNY: Then people should fear the violence, but not the revolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes what comes after the revolution is worse than what occurred before the revolution.
TINNY: Then people should fear wrong ideology but not the revolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you speak of revolution?
TINNY: By revolution, I refer to the overthrow of the existing conditions. I refer to a complete turnaround from the present social insanity to a beautiful future of peace and love. Revolution is change and change is part of the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can the existing conditions be overthrown without the use of violence?
TINNY: That is the purpose of the new worldview. When this new knowledge spreads through human society those who understand will perceive our reality differently. When the world is seen differently we will hold different beliefs and we will think different thoughts. Many present beliefs and thoughts are so detrimental to our individual progression and to the progression of human society that they must be regarded as insane. Words and deeds which arise from these wrong beliefs and thoughts cause great harm and suffering. The beliefs and thoughts based on the new worldview will be beneficial to our individual progression, also to the progression of human society; and so, may be considered the path of sanity. Words and deeds that arise from these right beliefs and thoughts will allow great success and happiness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That all sounds quite wonderful, but can you really expect these ideas to create such a substantial change in world society to be called a revolution?
TINNY: I don't say these ideas will create change, I say they will allow change to take place - at a rate unprecedented in human history. Change of this suddenness and magnitude must be called a revolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it matter whether or not the changes come fast or slow?
TINNY: The changes must come fast or there will be no human future to allow the completion of the revolution. Slow change is only feasible when there is enough time to allow for success. We need to almost immediately change the social insanity which threatens to destroy our species. We must become sane to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How much time do you think we have?
TINNY: There is no way to know for sure. We could have hundreds of years or we could have only a few minutes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we have hundreds of years then there might be enough time.
TINNY: If we only have a few minutes there will not be enough time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since there is no way to know how much time the human race has left, on what basis should we plan for the future?
TINNY: If we assume we have more time than we really do have, the result will be the extinction of the human species. If we assume we have less time than we really do have the result may be some added inconvenience; but at least we will survive. Given these alternatives there is only one reasonable choice. We must assume the destruction of humanity might occur at any moment. We must act as if our lives depend on it. They do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you put our predicament in those terms, it's easy to see how quickly we must act, how dedicated we must be, and how hard we must work.
TINNY: It will seem to be a great sacrifice at first. As we begin to give up those things that have been the focus of human striving for thousands of years, the wealth, the power, and the never ending quest for the pleasures of the flesh we may only do so because we must change or die. This type of sacrifice has been often experienced in the lives of individuals. When there is no alternative but to drastically alter one's life or die, perhaps for reasons of illness, most people find the inner strength to successfully make those changes. It is always a struggle, but it is usually won.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the threat of death the right way to initiate positive changes to human society?
TINNY: It would be much better if the human race had come to right beliefs and right behaviours before reaching this critical point. We could have but we didn't. Part of the new worldview is to objectively accept the reality of the present moment. It is no use feeling sorry for ourselves that we didn't become better sooner. We must face up to our reality and move forward from that point. Actually, I don't believe the threat of the extinction of our species would in the long run be sufficient to save us. The death facing the human race is not so much a threat as an alternative. All actions have some outcome. It is often possible to predict beforehand what will be the probable outcome of any action. If we consider the overall behaviour of human society at present as the action, we can predict very reliably what the outcome will be. It will be the destruction of human life, perhaps all life, on this planet. Once we realise this we must choose to change and live in harmony with the natural order or accept the natural consequence of society's wrong actions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say you don't believe the threat of the extinction of the human race would be sufficient to save us?
TINNY: It is because of the weakness of negative control. The range and magnitude of the social change that the human race must undergo to survive the threat of extinction cannot be carried out and maintained by negative control or force. The natural limit on the use of negative influence to attain any goal means that the human race cannot be forced to become good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most people would say that the use of force was the most powerful means available to attain any desired goal.
TINNY: As is often the case in a society gone insane, most people are wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is more powerful than force?
TINNY: That which is many more times powerful than force could be called directed positive influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What else could it be called?
TINNY: It could also be called love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have heard this said before, but it is still hard to believe.
TINNY: We are only beginning to realise the power of love as we are beginning to realise the weakness of force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Thank goodness that is our reality.
TINNY: I've always liked that term, "thank goodness". We often forget the deep meaning behind common sayings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could the realisation of the impending destruction of the human race bring about any positive change?
TINNY: Negative influence, while not able to maintain long term positive change, can successfully initiate short term change. I believe there is only one viable function that the threatened extinction of human life can have.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that?
TINNY: That threatened destruction could focus world-wide attention on the problem and provide motivation to seek a solution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But the solution itself cannot be through negative means.
TINNY: There is no solution to the many problems facing humanity, including the threat of extinction, but a positive solution. To attempt any solution using negative means would only worsen the problem.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think there will be some who will wrongly attempt to solve the world's problems through negative means?
TINNY: I'm almost sure that will happen.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once attention is focused on the problem, and motivation to seek a solution is developed, what happens next?
TINNY: That is the moment when the solution offered through the unified theory of existence is most likely to be accepted.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You don't say the unified theory will be accepted, but only that is the most likely moment for it to be accepted. Why is that?
TINNY: Humanity has through human history been notoriously short-sighted when it comes to understanding the true nature of the difficulties we are facing and accepting the necessary solutions. There is unfortunately some chance that we will once again do too little too late.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there presently attempts being made by governments to bring about an end to some of the main problems facing humanity?
TINNY: Many governments are doing a lot to be seen as attempting to provide solutions to the world's problems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you worded that answer makes me think you don't believe the governments are really trying to bring an end to the world's problems.
TINNY: I don't believe the efforts of some governments are sincere. Even those efforts that may be sincere are still misguided. There is truly much more effort being put forth to make people believe that the social problems are being faced and solutions attempted than is being put into any realistic solution to those problems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say that some governments are not sincere in their efforts to find a solution to the many social problems facing the human race?
TINNY: While some lack of success in finding solutions to the world's problems can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, the major cause of the lack of success is a refusal to do what is necessary to bring a solution about.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would governments refuse to act as they must do to solve the world's problems?
TINNY: Because the things that are the causes of the world's problems are often exactly the same things that governments most desire and seek.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what are those things which are both desired by governments and cause the many social problems facing humanity?
TINNY: Power and material wealth. Governments cannot afford to do what is truly necessary to bring about an end to the world's problems because governments play such a major part in causing these problems. If governments were to do what must be done they would in effect be bringing about their own end.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But governments cannot refuse to do something about the dire circumstances of human life.
TINNY: You're right; they can't refuse to do something, so they very publicly make what appear to be real attempts to solve these problems. The people are made to believe their governments are trying their hardest and doing all that can be done. People are made to believe that the problems are insurmountable, that they must be accepted. The problems are attributed to human nature and to modern life. The reality is that the world's governments are doing little to bring an end to these many problems facing human society. Since unless world society changes soon the human race is likely to become extinct, it could be fairly said that the overall result of the efforts of the world's governments is presently doing more harm than good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is the governments that are to blame.
TINNY: No, governments cannot be blamed. Governments are institutions of society, organised and run by members of society. We the people, all of us, must accept responsibility for the wrongs of our governments.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very few people have any say in what government does.
TINNY: It is the masses of humanity, those who appear to wield no power over government, who hold all the power. The will of the people cannot be resisted.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the will of the people cannot be resisted then why don't governments do what must be done to solve the problems facing humanity?
TINNY: Because the people have not rightly exercised their will yet. As things stand the will of the people supports wrong government, wrong goals, and wrong values.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there many people in every country working to right these wrongs?
TINNY: Certainly there are many in each country working to bring about our glorious future; but they represent only a tiny fraction of the whole. These right thinking people cannot by any means, at this point in human history, be said to represent the will of the people.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we need more right thinking people.
TINNY: This is the basic concept behind social change through the spread of a new, more correct worldview. Once world society consists mainly of individuals who see the truth of our reality more clearly, and have a common foundation to understand that reality, then the will of the people shall have direction. The will of people who hold this new worldview shall be more powerful through positive influence than the world's governments have ever been through the exercise of force. The will of a society which has come to the realisation that the path of force and aggression must be forsaken and the path of peace and love embraced can bring about the solution to all of the world's problems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather this plan to bring enlightenment to humanity is through the gift of knowledge.
TINNY: That is the plan; to spread the knowledge encompassed by the unified theory of existence to all members of human society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds like a very difficult task.
TINNY: There are many reasons which make the spread of this knowledge throughout the world much easier than it may at first appear.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some of those reasons?
TINNY: Many of these truths are already widely known and accepted. Many people are searching for truth. Many people are searching for an answer to the varied problems facing human society. Many people are dissatisfied with the present wrong worldview. If we don't almost immediately find a solution to aspects of the world's social problems which threaten to bring an end to life on this planet, we will have no future. The time has come when this knowledge will naturally unfold as part of the overall developmental process of material existence. These are some of the existing conditions that will facilitate the spread of the unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have said, in the natural sequence of unfolding events the time for the expression of this knowledge has come.
TINNY: During the process of envolution, when the moment comes that circumstances are right for the manifestation of some new characteristic of existence, it will invariably happen.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: More simply, please?
TINNY: When during the natural course of events the right time for something new comes, it cannot be stopped.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps in the case of the knowledge contained in the unified theory of existence it could be said, nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time is come.
TINNY: That is it exactly. Now that I see how powerful the knowledge of truth is, I have no trouble believing this new worldview will bring about the solution to the problems facing society and change the course of human history.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How exactly will this knowledge be spread throughout human society?
TINNY: The knowledge of truth does not exist as separate from human society. This knowledge is part of human society. It is the nature of this knowledge to be the means of its own dissemination. Truth is like a seed, which once planted in the mind of an individual, germinates, spreading its roots through the social body of the human race and flowering in the collective consciousness of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that this knowledge is the means of its own dissemination. What do you mean by that?
TINNY: It has to do with the way learning takes place. I could describe this process briefly, but this particular part of the unified theory of existence is so important that I would only feel right if I went into great detail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds extremely important.
TINNY: It is the key. Without this particular section of the unified theory of existence the rest may never have time to save human society from self-destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this part of the unified theory of existence have a name?
TINNY: No, it has no name. This is the knowledge of the way we learn; but in this sense I am using the word 'learn' very broadly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't you call this the section on learning anyway?
TINNY: When you hear all I have to say about this area of knowledge you will see why that name would be too narrow.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Or perhaps the present understanding of learning is too limited.
TINNY: That is a fair comment. Just as in all other areas the new worldview broadens the horizons, so the doors to new vistas are opened to our understanding of learning by this new knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Much of the new worldview so far has focused on physics, chemistry, cosmology, and biology. Is this most important area you are going to tell me about included in those sciences?
TINNY: Since all things are one and all things are linked there will certainly be a connection, but generally what I want to discuss next would be called psychology.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you define psychology?
TINNY: Psychology is often defined as the study of the mind, the study of human nature, or the study of behaviour. Those definitions are quite inclusive and I find them all acceptable, but I consider psychology to be the study of the relationship of consciousness with the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You couldn't define psychology much more broadly than that.
TINNY: All words are but names we assign to various aspects of our relationship with existence. Psychology happens to be a word that covers a large segment of that relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And as you define psychology, you say it is the key to the future of humanity. How is this?
TINNY: It is this particular knowledge that will allow freewill to be manifested to a degree never before possible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it our inability to fully express freewill which has caused humanity so many problems?
TINNY: Had we been able to freely choose our future we would not have chosen the tortuous path which has led the human race to the brink of destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those who have made the decisions along the way would say they were free to choose.
TINNY: No one who does not know their true nature ever makes a free choice. Because we were unaware of the true nature of the relationship between our consciousness and the physical existence, we were susceptible to negative influence. These unseen negative influences have determined that we walk the wrong path.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the knowledge of psychology enable us to be free from those negative influences?
TINNY: This knowledge allows us to understand the varied influences which affect our thinking, our behaviour, and our overall development as unique individuals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The range of possible influences is so great it hardly seems possible to be aware of them all.
TINNY: While the range of influences is virtually infinite they all fall into a small number of categories, and all of these influences act lawfully.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say the influences act lawfully?
TINNY: I mean that the effects of these varied influences upon our development can all be described by a set of laws.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these laws complicated?
TINNY: I couldn't say they are simple; but many of them, although having been given unfamiliar names, would be familiar when explained by example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you claim that by understanding several categories of influence and a set of laws of learning that we can overcome all the problems of society.
TINNY: This is true, but only if accompanied by the knowledge encompassed in the new worldview we have discussed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I realise it will take some time to cover this broad area of psychology, but could you tell me before you begin what the various categories of influence are that affect our learning and personal development.
TINNY: That can be put quite simply. There are basically three classes of influence that determine all our learning and the development of our individual personalities. First, we are influenced by the physical environment. Second, we are influenced by other people, social influence. And third, we are influenced by our own inner speech.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure you'll go into detail about these three types of influence later, but while the meaning of influences from the physical environment and from other people seems clear enough, what exactly is inner speech?
TINNY: Inner speech is internal communication with our own consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean inner speech is what could be called our thoughts?
TINNY: Inner speech includes thoughts, but is much more comprehensive than that. It includes not only thoughts, but feelings. Inner speech is all communication that originates within the mind. We are not yet aware of the full range of those communications. Some of the communications within the mind take place beyond the perception of ordinary waking consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I won't ask you anymore questions at this point. I think I should let you begin presenting the knowledge of psychology which will be so beneficial to the future of the human race.
TINNY: I have been thinking how best to explain this information. I'm not sure there is any preferred order. I will try to present this knowledge in the same order as I came to know it. It has been a natural unfolding as my understanding of psychology has envolved. I'm sure there are many other ways to come to the same understanding, but the way I came to know these truths is the way I know best.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure that method will do fine.
TINNY: When we first began this discussion you cautioned me that at the beginning the topics we discussed may not seem to have much to do with the ultimate goal of providing a solution to the problems facing human society. I must give you a similar caution as I begin to discuss psychology. It will be a while before the relevance of the various topics join together into a holistic system that can be instrumental in allowing humanity the exercise of sufficient freewill to usher in the promised utopian future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know that the time is forthcoming and welcome this prelude to that moment.
TINNY: As with much of my knowledge I never learned it through formal study, but came to this knowledge through my ongoing life experiences, readings, and talks with my parents. I had never been overly impressed with the area of science called psychology because it always seemed too vague and uncertain to be of much use. I liked the clarity of sciences like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Much of psychology sounds more like someone's opinion rather than scientific fact. When I discussed these worries about what psychology had to offer with my father he gave me a book on the principles of learning. He told me this was as close to hard science as psychology had gotten so far.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did these principles of learning satisfy your desire for clarity and certainty as did the physical sciences?
TINNY: Somehow these principles of learning didn't have much impact on me as I read the book. The knowledge of the principles of learning was clear and certain, but I'd have to admit I found it boring. This was odd because I usually found all learning to be fun and exciting. I don't think I truly realised how fundamental and critical these principles of learning were. I couldn't relate to them as having an important place in my everyday life and in the future of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather you changed your mind.
TINNY: I surely did.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did something special happen to cause you to see these principles of learning in a different light.
TINNY: Something very unusual happened. I taught a chicken to turn a full circle to the right while standing on one leg.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're correct, that was certainly something unusual. It also sounds like a very difficult task. Were you a very experienced chicken trainer?
TINNY: It was the first time I ever tried to teach a chicken anything.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it very hard to do?
TINNY: It was extremely easy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It must have taken a long time though.
TINNY: It only took about ten minutes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems almost impossible.
TINNY: I was astounded. I had never so clearly seen learning take place before.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How were you able to do such a remarkable thing? Most people wouldn't have the slightest idea how to begin teaching a chicken.
TINNY: I simply put the principles of learning I had read into practice. It was during those ten minutes, while I was teaching that chicken, when I came to realise what an incredibly powerful tool these principles of learning are. I realised that with these laws of learning there was no goal which could not be reached.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me exactly how you were able to teach the chicken those tasks?
TINNY: I'll describe the process in detail later, but first I want to start at the beginning and tell you about the laws of learning. Actually it's not really important how I taught the chicken those tasks. The importance of that experience is that it confirmed the truth and power of the principles of learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If they are so powerful couldn't they be dangerous in the wrong hands?
TINNY: Terrifyingly dangerous, but that also I'll discuss later. I really want to tell you about these laws of learning in the sequence that I came to know them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you choose to disclose these truths is the right way for you. Please begin.
TINNY: As I describe these principles of learning I'll try to make them clear by naming them, defining them, and providing examples. It would help me best to explain them if you would ask lots of questions. The principles themselves are relatively few and fairly simple, but there is a never ending complexity to their usage. The more I learn about them the greater my understanding of their potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't worry, I never run out of questions.
TINNY: I'll start by describing the simplest kind of learning. Sometimes instead of using the word 'learning' I'll use the word 'conditioning'. They mean just about the same thing but in some situations one term seems to fit better than the other.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll remember that, in these discussions learning and conditioning mean roughly the same thing.
TINNY: Something that really amazed me when I came across these principles of learning is that they have been known for less than one hundred years. People have been learning by them and using them to teach others for as long as there have been human beings, but only during this century did we come to realise that learning took place according to specific laws just like all other aspects of material existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We are often slowest in coming to know ourselves. Human beings were long considered to be set apart from all else that exists. Human beings were thought to be sacred and should not be studied.
TINNY: I think all that exists is sacred; but, I don't believe there is anything that should be considered beyond study.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did anyone first discover how learning takes place according to certain laws?
TINNY: It was first discovered accidentally while medical experiments were being conducted. Scientists were trying to find out how salivation takes place. They were working with a dog and had a mechanism that blew meat powder into a dog's mouth so they could determine how much saliva the dog produced with different amounts of meat powder. They found something they weren't expecting; sometimes the dog would begin to salivate before there was any meat powder in its mouth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That must have surprised them.
TINNY: Since they were scientists they decided to look carefully at how their experiment was set up in hopes of finding some logical reason for this unexpected happening. What they noticed was that one of their team, whose job it was to feed the meat powder to the dog, always entered the room wearing a white lab coat immediately before the experiment began. They realised that the dog would begin to salivate as soon as it saw this lab assistant in the white coat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I guess they would have asked themselves, "why did this happen?"
TINNY: That's the scientific way of thinking. If you come across anything that is unexplained you ask why.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did they go about finding out what it was about the lab assistant which caused the dog to salivate?
TINNY: At first they thought it was because the dog had come to know and perhaps like the lab assistant that caused the salivation to occur. They tested this idea by checking to see if the dog salivated when other people entered the room. No salivation occurred, so they thought they might have come up with the solution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were they right?
TINNY: No. Those others who entered the room were not wearing white coats. It turned out the dog would salivate when anyone wearing a white lab coat entered the room.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean it was the white lab coat and not the person that caused the dog to salivate?
TINNY: That's what they discovered.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I could almost imagine that seeing a person the dog knew and liked might bring about some salivation; but, it seems extremely unlikely there would be anything about a white lab coat that would cause a dog to salivate.
TINNY: To those who understand learning today the reason is obvious, but at that time the scientists were probably mystified.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, why did the white lab coat cause the dog to salivate?
TINNY: Because the dog had been conditioned to salivate when it saw someone enter the room wearing a white lab coat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you said the word conditioned means practically the same the same thing as the word learned, do you mean the dog learned to salivate when he saw someone wearing a white lab coat?
TINNY: That's what I mean, but as I describe the learning process you'll see why I said sometimes the word conditioned seems to fit the circumstances better.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'd like to hear in detail how this conditioning took place.
TINNY: We'll start by considering the original experiment. Meat powder was placed in the dog's mouth and the dog salivated. Each time the dog received a certain amount of meat powder it would produce, on the average, some certain number of drops of saliva. Here I'll have to introduce several words that describe different parts of this process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these scientific terms or are they common terms?
TINNY: Actually they are both, and they mean pretty much the same thing in both contexts. When they are used in the scientific sense though, their meaning is more specific.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those words?
TINNY: There are three words; stimulus, response, and reflex. Actually, I should probably also define the word elicit. A stimulus is something that brings about action. In the example we have been talking about the meat powder is the stimulus. The word 'elicit' means to bring something about, to cause something to happen. The stimulus, meat powder, elicits or brings about salivation, which in this case is the response. A response is a reaction to or result from a stimulus. The stimulus elicits a response which in this case is a way of saying the meat powder causes salivation to take place. This whole process is called a reflex. When a dog gets food in its mouth it salivates. A reflex is a fixed relationship between a stimulus and a response where the stimulus elicits the response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do reflexes work the same way in people?
TINNY: They are very similar. Candy in the mouth of a child will cause salivation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there many reflexes?
TINNY: There are quite a few. Some are obvious and some take place inside our bodies which we aren't aware of. When a doctor taps your knee in the right place with a little hammer your leg will jerk. That is an example of a common reflexe. All reflexes are natural responses that are elicited by stimuli in the environment. That is the way people and animals are made. Certain things which happen to our bodies bring about certain natural responses. That is the way our muscles, nerves, and brains are organised.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would even the simplest animals have some reflexes?
TINNY: Even single celled animals have natural reflexive responses to certain stimuli; and they don't even have brains in the usual sense of the word.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This still doesn't explain why the dog salivated when it saw someone in a white lab coat.
TINNY: The dog didn't learn to salivate when it had meat powder in its mouth, it did that naturally. Neither the stimulus nor the response was learned, they were not conditioned. The natural stimulus could then be called the unconditioned stimulus because it was unlearned, and the natural response could be called the unconditioned response because it was unlearned. The unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, naturally elicited the unconditioned response, salivation. In the case of this experiment, shortly before the dog was given the unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, it saw someone wearing a white lab coat. What is believed to have happened is that by being associated with the unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, the person in a white lab coat became a stimulus that could elicit salivation almost like the meat powder did. The dog learned, or was conditioned, to respond to the stimulus of a person in a white lab coat in much the same way it had responded to the meat powder. In such a situation the person in a white lab coat would be called a conditioned stimulus because it was learned. When the conditioned stimulus, the person in a white lab coat, elicits salivation, the salivation is now called a conditioned response because it was learned.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see why the meat powder and the person in the white lab coat are considered different types of stimuli; but since the dog salivates because of either the meat powder or the white coated lab assistant why is salivation called an unconditioned response when it is elicited by the meat powder and called a conditioned stimulus when it is elicited by someone in a white lab coat? Both of the responses are salivation, they are the same.
TINNY: They're not exactly the same. The dog might salivate somewhat less because of the lab assistant than it would to the meat powder; but that's not the reason the responses have different names. Salivation brought about by the meat powder is natural or unconditioned and salivation brought about by the white coated lab assistant is learned or conditioned. The dog will always salivate when it has meat powder in its mouth, but it won't always salivate when it sees someone in a white lab coat.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the circumstances which existed that you say conditioned the dog to salivate when it saw the white coated assistant, but why did this conditioning occur? What is it about the lab assistant coming into the room just before the dog had the meat powder placed in its mouth that later resulted in the dog salivating in the presence of the white coated lab assistant without the meat powder being present?
TINNY: Seeing the lab assistant in the white coat originally had no effect on the dog's salivation; in such a situation the white coated lab assistant could be called a neutral stimulus since no salivation response was initially elicited. As it turns out, if the lab assistant had entered the room after the meat powder was placed in the dog's mouth, rather than immediately before, the dog would never have been conditioned to salivate when it saw the white coated lab assistant. In such a circumstance the white coated person would never have become a conditioned stimulus which could elicit the response of salivation. The critical factor in this type of learning experience is the pairing of the natural unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder, and the previously neutral stimulus, the white lab coat. For this type of learning to take place the dog had to see the white lab coat just prior to getting the meat powder. In this type of learning situation you begin with a naturally occurring reflex action, where a certain stimulus regularly elicits a certain response. A neutral stimulus can then be chosen and must be presented just before the unconditioned stimulus occurs. When this is done the previously neutral stimulus will take on the characteristics of the natural unconditioned stimulus and will elicit a similar response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could something other than the person in a white lab coat also be made into a stimulus that would bring about salivation?
TINNY: Actually that was one of the first thoughts those scientists had when they discovered this new type of learning. They decided to use a very different kind of stimulus. They chose to use a bell. In this situation the relationship between the meat powder and the salivation response remained the same, but now the experiment was arranged so that a mechanical device would put the meat powder in the dog's mouth with nobody in the room. This time the neutral stimulus that was presented just before the meat powder was a bell.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And did the dog become conditioned to salivate when the bell rang?
TINNY: After only a few pairings of the meat powder and the bell the conditioning began to take effect, and the dog began to salivate when the bell was sounded without any meat powder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This conditioning seems to occur quite suddenly.
TINNY: Not really. As I said, after only a few pairings of the meat powder and the bell the dog began to salivate when the bell sounded alone, but, the bell wasn't nearly as effective at eliciting salivation as the meat powder was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How was it different?
TINNY: When the bell sounded the dog began to salivate later and produced much less saliva than was elicited by the meat powder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems that after just a few pairings of the bell with the meat powder the dog was only partly conditioned to salivate when it heard the bell alone.
TINNY: Most learning takes place gradually through a series of small steps. After a few pairings of the bell and the meat powder the learning process has only just begun. After quite a few pairings of the bell and the meat powder the salivation response would have been fully conditioned. The bell stimulus alone would then elicit a salivation response almost as fast as the natural stimulus, meat powder, and there would be almost as many drops of saliva.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once the new reflex is learned, in this case salivation being elicited by a bell, does it remain effective forever?
TINNY: While natural reflexes remain in effect forever, the conditioned reflex will fade out over time. Each time the bell is sounded without being paired with the meat powder, the salivation response will fade to some degree.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a name for this process when conditioning loses its effects?
TINNY: It is called extinction. Extinction in this case refers to the decrease in the power of conditioning which takes place when the conditioned stimulus, the bell, is repeated without being paired with the natural unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the strength of the conditioned stimulus decrease suddenly during extinction?
TINNY: No, it decreases gradually. Each time the bell is sounded without the meat powder it will take a little longer for salivation to begin and there will be fewer drops of saliva. After the bell has been sounded quite a few times, without being paired with the meat powder, sounding the bell will no longer elicit the salivation response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the process by which a previously neutral stimulus like the lab coat or the bell can come to elicit the response of salivation through conditioning, and I understand the process by which a conditioned stimulus like the lab coat or the bell can lose the power to elicit the response of salivation by extinction; but, I would like to know why it happens. Just because the bell is presented immediately before the meat powder, why does this condition the dog to salivate when the bell is presented alone? And once the dog has learned to salivate to the sound of the bell, why does that conditioning disappear if the bell is sounded lots of times without being paired with the meat powder?
TINNY: Of course I couldn't tell you what really goes on in the mind of a dog while these conditioning and extinction processes are taking place; but, I can make a pretty good guess. In the brain of any animal the neurons, through their various interconnections, perceive and interpret information from all sources of the environment. The interconnections of these neurons also store information about past experiences. This stored information is called the memory. The holistic relationship between the memory and the perceptual and interpretative processes in the brain determines how the animal will behave, both on the conscious and subconscious level. When the various sensory nerves in the dog's mouth react to the meat powder they send a message to the brain.
This message is perceived and interpreted by the brain and matched with stored information. A holistic analysis of this perception, interpretation, and stored information results in a message from the brain directing that saliva be produced in the dog's mouth. The dog is born with these particular neural connections. A dog's inherited response to the stimulus of meat powder in the mouth is to salivate. It is this type of inbuilt neuronal connection which is called a reflex. When the dog hears the bell for the first time it means nothing. If the bell is loud it might startle the dog, which is another reflex, but it will have no effect on salivation. This is because in that situation the holistic analysis of perception, interpretation, and stored information does not naturally include anything to do with salivation. As soon as the conditioning process begins, and the bell is presented just before the meat powder, the bell becomes part of the holistic analysis which takes place in the brain. This analysis soon comes to accept that there is a relationship between the bell and the meat powder. Since the bell is always sounded just before the meat powder is presented the bell then becomes a cue which allows the holistic analysis to arrive more quickly at the conclusion that the appropriate response to the situation will be the response of salivation.
To react quickly and appropriately to any situation is a survival tactic of great importance. Mechanisms which allow the animal to react more quickly and appropriately in the varied situations that may arise have been incorporated into the genetic information stored in the chromosomes of all animals. It is one of these survival mechanisms which allows the dog to be conditioned to salivate to a bell which has been paired with the natural unconditioned stimulus of the meat powder. Each time the bell is paired with the meat powder the holistic analysis, which is a logical system, can be a little more sure that the sound of the bell truly signals the coming of the meat powder. It is for this reason that the early pairings of the bell and meat powder don't result in immediate salivation or very much saliva being produced. In the early stages of the conditioning process the holistic analysis is tentative in its acceptance of the knowledge that the bell will be followed by the meat powder and so responds cautiously. After many pairings of the bell and the meat powder the holistic analysis comes to accept more fully the certainty that the bell will be followed by the meat powder and so responds to the bell almost as quickly and strongly as to the meat powder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After the dog becomes conditioned to salivate in response to the bell this new reflex will continue only so long as the holistic analysis has good reason to expect meat powder to follow after the bell has sounded.
TINNY: And if the pairings of the meat powder with the bell are discontinued, and the bell is presented many times alone, the holistic analysis will eventually come to the conclusion that the bell no longer serves as a cue to indicate the meat powder is forthcoming. This extinction process will be gradual for the same reason the conditioning process was gradual. At first, when the meat powder is not presented after the bell, the holistic analysis cannot be certain that the relationship no longer exists and that the bell can no longer be used as a cue to know that the meat powder is forthcoming. Just as the holistic analysis is tentative in the beginning of the conditioning process, it is tentative in the beginning of the extinction process. The holistic analysis responds cautiously and begins gradually to increase the time until salivation begins and slowly decreases the amount of salivation. After many soundings of the bell without being followed by meat powder the holistic analysis can be quite certain that the bell will no longer be followed by the meat powder so discontinues salivating after the bell is sounded.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the greater the expectation the bell will be followed by the meat powder the stronger will be the conditioning of the salivation response. And the less the expectation the bell will be followed by the meat powder the more complete will be the extinction of the salivation response.
TINNY: Expectation is a word that relates better to human level consciousness, but generally that is the case.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This explains why the conditioned stimulus, the bell, must be presented just before the unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder, doesn't it?
TINNY: That's right. If the bell was sounded long before the meat powder was presented no connection between the two stimuli would be made in the holistic analysis. If the bell were sounded after the meat powder was presented it could not serve as a cue that the meat powder was forthcoming and so would not be considered relevant in the holistic analysis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the dog had first been conditioned to respond by salivating to the bell stimulus, and then that response was fully extinguished by repeated presentations of the bell never followed by the meat powder, could you condition the dog a second time to salivate in response to the bell alone?
TINNY: You could, and the conditioning process would be quicker the second time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would the conditioning process be quicker the second time?
TINNY: It once again has to do with the holistic analysis taking place in the dog's brain. The first time the conditioning procedure was experienced information regarding the bell was not included in the holistic analysis. It took a number of pairings of the bell and the meat powder for the bell to become a relevant factor in the holistic analysis. After the salivation response to the bell was completely extinguished the information regarding the bell remained in the memory, but when the holistic analysis took place it was no longer considered a relevant factor. The second time the conditioning procedure was done, with meat powder once again being presented shortly after the ringing of the bell, the holistic analysis recalling the past relevance of the bell does not take so long to accept the knowledge the meat powder will be forthcoming after the bell has rung.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if the dog underwent three, four or more similar conditioning procedures?
TINNY: Each time the conditioning procedure is begun anew the dog would learn more quickly to respond to the bell stimulus by salivating.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How quick could this conditioning procedure become?
TINNY: The conditioning procedure could eventually become so efficient that presenting the meat powder right after the bell was rung just one time would be enough to recondition the dog to salivate to the bell alone.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's awfully quick.
TINNY: Learning, given the right circumstances, can be a very efficient process. Each time the dog is reconditioned the accumulated information stored in memory enables the holistic analysis to reach a conclusion more quickly about whether or not the bell is a true cue as to whether the meat powder is forthcoming.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If each time the conditioning procedure is begun anew it occurs more quickly, does the same hold true for the extinction procedure?
TINNY: It does. Each time the extinction procedure is begun anew the accumulated information stored in memory enables the holistic analysis to more quickly reach the conclusion that the bell no longer serves as a cue that meat powder is forthcoming.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this type of conditioning we have been discussing have a name?
TINNY: I know of at least three different names this process has been called. I usually think of it as classical conditioning because it was the first and simplest type of conditioning that came to be scientifically understood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a short explanation of classical conditioning?
TINNY: When you present a neutral stimulus shortly before some other stimulus, the unconditioned stimulus, which already has the ability to bring about a certain response, and this previously neutral stimulus, when presented alone, takes on the ability to elicit essentially that same response, classical conditioning has taken place.
