PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Classical conditioning works with people also, doesn't it?
TINNY: It works the same way for all animals and human beings. The more highly developed the level of consciousness the more complex are the circumstances of the conditioning process. At the human level the holistic analysis is much more sophisticated and wide ranging than in any animal, therefore many more factors are included in the classical conditioning process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an example of how classical conditioning occurs with human beings?
TINNY: There is a situation that sometimes occurs with young children that is very similar to the circumstances during the salivation experiment with the dog when classical conditioning was first discovered. This involves the situation where a young child is first taken to a doctor, perhaps to receive a painful treatment. The doctor might be wearing a white coat and be a friendly person whom the child likes at first meeting. While the doctor is treating the child the child experiences pain because of the treatment. The child responds to the painful stimulus by crying and trying to get away from the doctor, which is a common way in which young children respond to things that cause them pain. Now suppose a few months later the child goes to another doctor, as soon as this doctor appears wearing a white coat the child cries and tries to run away from the doctor. This time the child is responding to the white coat in the same way the pain had been responded to. The white coat was originally a neutral stimulus having no particular effect on the child. The pain was originally an unconditioned stimulus, a stimulus that naturally elicited crying and running away.
When the white coat was paired with the pain, the white coat took on the ability of the pain to bring about crying and running away. The white coat became a conditioned stimulus which would elicit crying and running away on its own. Since the avoidance of harm is a survival tactic that has been incorporated into the genetic make-up of human beings, our brains are structured to learn anything that can aid us to avoid pain. The earlier we can recognise a situation that might cause us harm the more effectively we can avoid that harm. When the child first saw a doctor in a white coat, the white coat would have no special significance to the holistic analysis taking place in the child's brain. The child would respond to the doctor as to any other stranger. After being caused pain while being treated by the doctor the information about the circumstances of the pain was stored in the child's memory. The next time, when the child went to another doctor, the child perceiving the white coat matched this perception with the stored information regarding similar circumstances. The holistic analysis no longer considered the white coat to be a neutral stimulus but now understands the white coat as a cue that harm might be coming.
The holistic analysis, which as part of its function advises action to avoid harm, indicates that crying and running away is the appropriate response to the situation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the holistic analysis the same as the mind?
TINNY: The holistic analysis is one of the functions of consciousness; it is an aspect of mind, but it is not all that mind is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In human beings is this holistic analysis conscious?
TINNY: At the human level the holistic analysis has both conscious and unconscious aspects. The lower the level of consciousness the more the holistic analysis is an unconscious process. The higher the level of consciousness the more the holistic analysis is a conscious process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And when consciousness reaches perfection?
TINNY: At the level of perfected consciousness there are no unconscious processes. The holistic analysis is done with complete awareness. At this level there is nothing which is not perceived, nothing which is not correctly interpreted, and no information which is not known; perfect perception, perfect understanding, and perfect memory. As would be expected, the holistic analysis is then always perfectly logical and correct.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that holistic analysis also envolves.
TINNY: There is nothing that does not envolve. The development of the holistic analysis can be traced back to the beginning of the physical universe as can all other things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Classical conditioning seems to be a rather limited type of learning experience. It doesn't seem it could account for the great complexity of learning that takes place at either the animal or the human level.
TINNY: There is a much more comprehensive learning process than classical conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is this broader learning process called?
TINNY: Just as classical conditioning has several names, this greater learning process has several names. If I had to name this process I would call it operant conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is operant conditioning the most accepted name for this broad type of learning?
TINNY: It is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a brief explanation of operant conditioning?
TINNY: Operant conditioning, while not a very familiar term, is very commonly practiced in everyday life. Most of operant conditioning involves what we commonly call reward and punishment. Operant conditioning is a scientific way of looking at how that which follows a response affects that response in the future. Very simply if any response is followed by a reward that response will tend to increase in the future; and, if any response is followed by punishment that response will tend to decrease in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds both simple and logical.
TINNY: These laws of learning are always logical, but they can also be quite complex. There is much more to operant conditioning than those very simple descriptions of reward and punishment. There is no aspect of our lives not touched by these laws of learning. We must know these laws of learning to more perfectly manifest our great potential for freewill.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm looking forward to your explanation of all these laws of learning.
TINNY: There is so much to know about these laws of learning I almost don't know where to begin. This discussion will need many new terms defined, and examples given of these laws in practice. Luckily, since all knowledge is linked and all truth interconnected, all the varied aspects of operant conditioning will fall into place and allow a comprehensive understanding of the whole beyond the scope of my explanations.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps you could start by explaining how operant conditioning is different from classical conditioning.
TINNY: I could also tell you how they are the same, but I'll save that for later. The main difference between classical conditioning and operant conditioning is in the order in which the stimulus and the response occur. In classical conditioning the controlling stimulus occurs before the response. We say the stimulus elicits the response. In the example given, the dog really has no choice but to salivate when it has meat powder placed in its mouth. The stimulus of the meat powder very directly causes the salivation to occur. It is an involuntary response. After the dog is conditioned to salivate to the previously neutral stimulus of the bell it has very little choice in that situation either. In that case the salivation brought about by the bell is also involuntary. In classical conditioning it could be said the stimulus controls the response. What happens in operant conditioning is quite different. There is both a stimulus and a response involved in this type of learning also but they occur in a different sequence than in classical conditioning. Importantly, the stimulus has a different relationship with the response; it influences rather than controls. The response which is involved in operant conditioning is also very different in that it is voluntary, rather than involuntary as in classical conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the sequence in which the stimulus and response occur is different, the stimulus must follow the response in operant conditioning.
TINNY: That's true. In operant learning the influencing stimulus comes after the response. The response, which is voluntary, is followed by a stimulus. Also, the nature of the stimulus which follows the response has an influence on the occurrence of that response in the future. The influence of the stimulus might result in more responses, less responses, or changed responses in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does the word 'operant' mean?
TINNY: Operant means 'to operate upon'. It refers to the fact that all responses operate upon the environment. The change in the environment brought about by a response becomes the stimulus. All responses affect some change in the environment, and these changes in the environment will have some affect on the nature of the response in the future. That is why this type of learning is called operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is a description of the relationship between responses and the changes which follow those responses.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you use the word 'environment' what do you mean?
TINNY: Environment is one of the most inclusive words in our language. It has been used to describe all surrounding things, conditions, and influences. That definition is how I mean the word environment to be understood, with the exception of one word which I must remove.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which word would you remove from that definition of environment?
TINNY: I would have to take out the word "surrounding". The usual understanding of environment, as indicated by the word surrounding, implies the environment is everything which is external. It says the environment is that which surrounds me or that which surrounds you. I say my environment includes me and your environment included you. I define the environment as all things, conditions, and influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't see how it could rightly be otherwise.
TINNY: Later it will become clear how this misunderstanding of the true nature of the environment has restricted the potential of personal development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure it will. For now I would like to ask you to further explain a few more of the words you have already used. Some of these words you have already defined when you were explaining classical conditioning, but they seem to mean something different now that you are explaining operant conditioning.
TINNY: Which words are those?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In particular the words 'stimulus' and 'response'. You said a stimulus is something that brings about an action, and you said a response is a reaction to a stimulus.
TINNY: That's the way I defined them all right. I would stand by those definitions. It happens those definitions of 'stimulus' and 'response' fit particularly well with the way stimulus and response occur in classical conditioning, but those definitions I gave were general. They apply to stimulus and response in a much broader context than just classical conditioning. More generally, saying that a stimulus brings about a reaction means that it is perceived. Anything that can be perceived is a stimulus.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If perception is a reaction to a stimulus is perception then a response?
TINNY: Yes it is. A response is a reaction to a stimulus. A perception is a reaction to a stimulus. A perception is a form of response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This is getting complicated. Every response is an action. Every action may be perceived. Anything that can be perceived is a stimulus. A response is also a stimulus.
TINNY: That's true. Every response is a stimulus.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And I suppose every stimulus is a response.
TINNY: That's true also, every stimulus is a response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can this be?
TINNY: This is the nature of physical existence. Existence in the material plane is a sea of causality. Each action is affected by some stimulus; and each action, as soon as it occurs, becomes a stimulus that will provoke further action. Actually, each stimulus brings about innumerable responses and each response serves as innumerable stimuli.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All of this because the physical universe is a dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns.
TINNY: Exactly. It is important to understand these laws of learning not as separate concepts but as an integral part of the unified theory of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the same conditions are true in both the physical universe and in learning. Every stimulus will have some affect on future actions, and every action will have some affect on future stimuli.
TINNY: In classical conditioning the relationship between the stimulus and the response is most simple and most clear. A certain stimulus elicits a certain response. In operant conditioning the relationship with the stimulus is less simple and less clear. The laws of learning describe the different relationships between the stimulus and the response and the effects of those various relationships.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the meaning of stimulus and response better now, but still not perfectly.
TINNY: Rather than defining a lot of new terms right now I'd like to start explaining these laws of learning and define the meaning of new words and concepts as they arise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be fine.
TINNY: Virtually all of operant conditioning involves forms of reward or punishment. Reward is often referred to as reinforcement. In some circumstances the word 'reinforcement' is more appropriate than reward. Reinforcement always increases the probability that a response will occur in the future given similar circumstances. Punishment always decreases the probability that a response will occur in the future given similar circumstances. Reward increases responding; punishment decreases responding.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps a simple example of reinforcement and punishment would make these laws of learning easier to understand and discuss.
TINNY: As we discuss operant conditioning many of the examples I'll be giving will be about the learning experiences of animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the basic laws of learning involved apply equally to human beings?
TINNY: The basic principles will be identical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why don't you give only examples of human learning then?
TINNY: Because although the principles are identical the applications are made much more complex due to the high level of human consciousness. It is always easier to see and understand basic principles at the lower levels of material development. Don't worry though; I'll include plenty of examples of human learning experiences after we have covered the basic principles. All things must progress through a series of successive small steps. Learning is no exception.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: First then, an example of learning by reinforcement.
TINNY: There is one more thing I need to describe first. Since we want to discuss the basic principles as simply as possible we need an experimental situation where all the different parts of the learning process are obvious. To achieve this goal scientists have designed experimental chambers where animals can take part in these learning experiences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of animals take part in these learning experiments?
TINNY: When the experimental learning chambers are used they are usually restricted to four kinds of animals; pigeons, chickens, rats, and monkeys.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think its right to use those animals for these learning experiments?
TINNY: As in all relationships between humans and animals, if the experience is enjoyable and beneficial to the animal it should be alright.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will all of the experiments you'll be telling me about meet those requirements?
TINNY: Unfortunately no. Some of the experiments have been quite horrible. I could never do such things myself, and when the new worldview prevails researchers into learning will find ways to further knowledge without bringing harm to animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you feel alright using the knowledge that has been gained at the expense of the suffering of animals?
TINNY: Once new knowledge becomes part of the collective human consciousness it cannot be ignored. Truth is always independent of its source.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything intrinsically wrong in the use of these experimental learning chambers?
TINNY: Animals during their lives experience many different environmental circumstances just as people do. There is nothing wrong with an animal having the experience of being in an experimental learning chamber. As long as the animal is well treated and comes to no harm there is nothing wrong with the experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You can finish explaining the characteristics of these experimental chambers now
TINNY: These experimental chambers always contain at least three specific features - a mechanism which the animal can manipulate as its response; a means to provide the reinforcing or punishing stimulus, with food usually being used as the reinforcing stimulus; and, a visual or auditory signal, such as a light or buzzer, which can be used as a cue.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is a cue needed during these learning situations?
TINNY: It will be clear as soon as I describe the operant learning situation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kind of mechanism is used that the animal manipulates as it responds?
TINNY: For rats and monkeys there is usually a lever that they can press. For pigeons and chickens there is a disc they can peck. The cue is usually a light which can be switched on or off. Sometimes it can be switched to different colours. In the experimental chambers used for pigeons and chickens the light is usually behind the disc that the birds peck. In the chambers used for rats and monkeys the light is usually placed above the lever.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is the food given to the animal as a reward?
TINNY: Pigeons and chickens are usually given bird seed which is in a little container called a food hopper. The hopper is concealed behind a wall and moves into place so the birds can eat for a few seconds each time reinforcement is given. Rats get food pellets and monkeys receive small pieces of fruit in a similar manner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think I have a fair idea now of what these experimental chambers are like.
TINNY: Good, now I can describe a very simple example of learning through reinforcement. If a rat enters one of these learning chambers for the first time it will wander around and explore its new surroundings. This is a natural behaviour with rats. Somewhat humanising the rat's motivation, you could say it was inquisitive. It might take several minutes, but eventually the rat will press the lever during its exploration. The action of pressing the lever is the response to be conditioned by operant means. If immediately after the rat presses the lever it is given, or you might say rewarded with, a food pellet it will soon spend all its time in the cage pressing the lever, at least as long as it is hungry. This would be the simplest type of reinforcement possible. In this example the response is lever pressing and reinforcing stimulus is food. Each time the rat presses the lever it is immediately given a food pellet. As I described operant conditioning, it is concerned with how the events which follow a response affect the nature of that response in the future. In this example of reinforcement each response of lever pressing is followed by the presentation of the positive stimulus, food. Being given food after each lever press increases the amount of lever pressing that the rat engages in.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does being given food after each lever press cause the rat to press the lever more often?
TINNY: That is an important point to understand. The food does not cause the rat to press the lever more often. It is the internal condition of the rat that causes the increase in lever pressing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that the food elicits lever pressing.
TINNY: Things are often not as they appear. If it was true that the food caused lever pressing the rat would have no choice but to press the lever. In this situation, though, the rat should be thought of as choosing to press the lever. Instead of the food eliciting the response, it is more accurate to say that the rat emits a response which is followed by the presentation of food.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is the word 'emit' different from the word 'elicit'?
TINNY: 'Elicit' means to bring about, implying external control. The word 'emit' means to send out, implying internal control.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any way to prove that lever pressing is a voluntary response chosen by the rat rather than an involuntary response caused by the food.
TINNY: It can be shown quite clearly. The learning situation in this example will only result in increased lever pressing if the rat is hungry. If the rat had eaten its fill just before entering the experimental chamber the food pellets, which followed the few lever presses that naturally occur as the rat explored its new environment, would have had no effect on how often the lever was pressed. The rat would not spend all its time standing by the lever pressing it. I think this can best be explained by looking at the holistic analysis taking place in the rat's brain during these experiences. To a hungry rat obtaining food will be a primary consideration of this holistic analysis. Anything which provides a means to obtain food is valuable information during this period. Before the rat first presses the lever the holistic analysis includes no relationship between lever pressing and obtaining food. As soon as lever pressing is immediately followed by food a connection between the two begins to form. At first the holistic analysis cannot be certain the response of lever pressing will be followed by food so the rate of lever pressing does not increase greatly. Since rats are fast learners it doesn't take very many instances when food follows lever pressing for the holistic analysis to become quite certain of the relationship between the two. You could say the rat has learned a way to obtain food. As long as the rat is hungry the holistic analysis will continue providing advice that the lever pressing is an appropriate response which will obtain food. When the rat is no longer hungry the information that food can be obtained by lever pressing remains stored in memory, but now the holistic analysis is no longer concerned with obtaining food. Now the holistic analysis would advise that lever pressing was not of benefit. Rats, just as most animals, do not act unless it is for some benefit. The rat would no longer press the lever very often.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about if the rat was in the chamber long enough to get hungry again?
TINNY: The stored information indicating food could be obtained by pressing the lever would be available to the holistic analysis. When once again interested in getting food the rat has learned and remembered what to do to get food. If it became hungry the holistic analysis would advise pressing the lever to obtain food. The rat would once again begin pressing the lever at some high rate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see what you meant when you said it was not the food that caused the rat to press the lever, but that it was some inner condition of the rat that caused it to press the lever.
TINNY: The food has an influence, but it is not a cause. The holistic analysis taking place in the rat's brain evaluates all the pertinent factors, certainly including the rat's immediate need for food. It is this holistic analysis which mediates the degree of influence the food will be allowed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that the holistic analysis has something to do with freewill.
TINNY: The holistic analysis is a critical factor in the degree to which freewill can be expressed at all levels of material development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain once again what is included in the holistic analysis?
TINNY: The holistic analysis is a dynamic process, it is always undergoing change. Any form of material existence is constantly receiving many stimuli from the environment. If the particular material form is a rat, as in the example we have been discussing, the holistic analysis takes place mainly in the brain. There are many stimuli reaching the rat. These stimuli are received by the rat's sensory nerves and transmitted to the brain. The brain interprets these sensory inputs and matches them with appropriate memory storage. This interaction between perception, interpretation, and the stored information of memory results in an evaluation of all these factors in relation to the general conditions and circumstances of the rat. This process is best thought of as a holistic analysis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any difference at the human level?
TINNY: In addition to perception, interpretation, and memory, which are the crucial factors at the animal level, self-reflective consciousness is included at the human level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does this addition of self-reflective consciousness affect the holistic analysis?
TINNY: Self-reflective consciousness allows a much greater range of variables to be considered by the holistic analysis which takes place in the human brain. This self-reflective consciousness becomes, in effect, another source of environmental influence. The effect of self-reflective consciousness is the third factor of environmental influence, inner speech.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this the reason you felt it necessary to define environment as including the self?
TINNY: That is why. Self-reflective consciousness provides a new source of stimuli which are perceived, interpreted, and matched against previously stored information during the holistic analysis, in just the same manner as the external stimuli.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this why a human being has a greater degree of freewill than an animal?
TINNY: It is for exactly that reason. The complexity and sophistication of the holistic analysis determines the degree to which freewill can be manifested.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does any holistic analysis take place in material forms below the animal level?
TINNY: Plants, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles all have holistic analysis as one of their natural characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But none of those levels of material form have a brain.
TINNY: The brain is not necessary to the process of holistic analysis. The holistic analysis takes place within each level of material existence in whatever is the most appropriate structure of that particular form. In humans and most animals the brain is the focus of conscious activity and therefore is the most appropriate site for holistic analysis to take place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By the definition of consciousness, which is the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment, it can be seen that all levels of material existence, even atoms and subatomic particles, manifest the characteristics of perception. Can it also be the case that these very simple levels of physical existence manifest the characteristics of interpretation and storage of information?
TINNY: Holistic analysis at the human levels includes those three functions; perception, interpretation, and storage of information. In addition at the human level, self-reflective consciousness becomes a new and critical factor in the holistic analysis. At the animal level, holistic analysis while including perception, interpretation, and information storage, does not include fully expressed self-reflective consciousness. This is not to say that the precursors of self-reflective consciousness do not exist at the animal level and are involved in the holistic analysis. In the levels of physical existence below the animal, perception, interpretation, and storage of information are less fully expressed, to varying degrees, than at the animal level. This is not to say that the precursors of perception, interpretation, and information storage do not exist at all those lower levels, be they plant, molecule, atom, or subatomic particle; and, that they are all involved in the process of holistic analysis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And at each of those levels the degree of freewill which can be expressed is determined by how fully developed are the characteristics of perception, interpretation, and information storage. At every level of physical existence the degree of freewill expressed is determined by the complexity and sophistication of the holistic analysis.
TINNY: That's true. Even an electron uses holistic analysis to react appropriately to the simple sources of environmental influence which it can perceive. Its range of perception is so limited and its range of appropriate action so restricted that it expresses virtually no freewill. At the human level the range of perception is so wide and the range of appropriate action so broad that the degree of freewill expressed surpasses for the first time the influence of external causes. At both the animal and human level the laws of learning describe the relationship between the conscious, living organism and the environmental influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It becomes very useful in understanding these laws of learning to understand the concept of holistic analysis.
TINNY: It should be remembered that holistic analysis is a conceptual tool to aid understanding, and not a thing in itself. The concept of holistic analysis was neglected in the early theories of learning. This omission resulted in an inability to realise the full potential of the application of these learning principles to the happiness of the individual, to the betterment of society, and to the progression of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you describe various examples of operant conditioning I will always try to include the holistic analysis in my understanding of them.
TINNY: In the simple example of reinforcement we were discussing, it is necessary to have some idea of the holistic analysis to know whether the learning process will be successful. If you intend to reward a rat with food for pressing a lever you must know whether or not the holistic analysis will consider the food worth working for. If the rat is not hungry, food will not be desirable; food could not be considered a positive stimulus in that situation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Positive stimulus is a new term. There must also be such a thing as negative stimulus.
TINNY: A positive stimulus is something which is desired and a negative stimulus is something to be avoided. A negative stimulus is usually called aversive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there also a neutral stimulus?
TINNY: A neutral stimulus would be one that was neither desired nor avoided.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would have thought that food could always be considered a positive stimulus, but it became clear that to a rat which had just eaten its fill food would then be a neutral stimulus.
TINNY: It would be possible that if someone had just overeaten to the point of feeling sick, food could even become an aversive stimulus.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that no stimulus is intrinsically positive, neutral, or aversive.
TINNY: Whether a stimulus is positive, neutral or aversive is not determined by the stimulus itself, but by whoever perceives the stimulus. It is the holistic analysis which determines whether a stimulus is positive, neutral, or aversive. It is usually fairly easy to determine what will be considered a positive or negative stimulus by an animal because their holistic analysis does not include self-reflective consciousness. With human beings it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to judge what might be considered a positive or aversive stimulus. It seems some people will desire what the vast majority find most aversive; and some will be repulsed by what the vast majority find most attractive. These seeming discrepancies are due to the compelling and largely unrestricted influence of self-reflective consciousness on the human holistic analysis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since holistic analysis is an internal process, how is it possible to know whether a stimulus will be considered as positive, neutral, or aversive if you intend to use that stimulus to condition a response?
TINNY: Of course you can never know for sure without presenting the stimulus after the response and looking at the effect on that response. Practically, though, it is possible to know through two general means. First, there are many stimuli that are almost invariably perceived as positive or aversive. The other way to know, before conditioning, the positive or aversive character of the stimulus is to be aware of the past circumstances of the animal or person you are working with. Virtually any rat who had not eaten for a whole day would consider food to be a very positive stimulus. By knowing the past circumstances it is possible to predict quite accurately what the internal condition will be and to know the likely outcome of the holistic analysis.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that positive stimuli always increase the probability of the response occurring in the future, and negative stimuli always decrease the probability of the response occurring in the future? In other words, does reinforcement always involve a positive stimulus, and does punishment always involve a negative stimulus?
TINNY: That sounds quite reasonable, but in fact is not true. Reward and punishment are not determined by what type of stimulus is involved, but are defined by their affect on the responses they follow. Regardless of whether the stimulus is positive or aversive, reinforcement always increases the probability of the response occurring in the future; and, punishment, regardless of whether the stimulus is positive or aversive, always decreases the probability of the response occurring in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a negative stimulus be involved conditioning a response increase; and, how can a positive stimulus be involved in conditioning a response decrease?
TINNY: There are basically four types of operant conditioning, two of reinforcement and two of punishment. Reinforcement can involve either a positive or negative stimulus; and punishment can involve either a positive or negative stimulus. The most familiar type of reinforcement involves a positive stimulus occurring after the response; and, the most familiar type of punishment involves a negative stimulus occurring after the response. When a response is followed by a positive stimulus that response tends to increase in the future. If we do anything that gets us something we want we are more likely to do that thing again in the future. When a response is followed by an aversive stimulus that response tends to decrease in the future. When we do anything that brings us something we don't like we are less likely to do that thing again in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That leaves unexplained one type of reinforcement which involves a negative stimulus, and one type of punishment that involves a positive stimulus.
TINNY: Reinforcement which involves a positive stimulus is called positive reinforcement; so quite logically reinforcement that involves a negative stimulus is called negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement occurs when the response removes an already present aversive stimulus. When a response removes an aversive stimulus that response tends to increase in the future. If we do anything that stops something we don't like we are more likely to do that thing again in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how can a positive stimulus be involved in punishment?
TINNY: Punishment that involves a negative stimulus has no special name, but it could be called presentation punishment since a negative stimulus is presented after the response. This would allow punishment that involves a positive stimulus to quite logically be called withdrawal punishment. Withdrawal punishment occurs when the response removes an already present positive stimulus. When a response removes a positive stimulus that response tends to decrease in the future. If we do anything that stops something we like we are less likely to do that thing again in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me be sure I have all this straight. Operant conditioning falls into four main types. They are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, presentation punishment, and withdrawal punishment.
TINNY: That's right. Most of the complex types of operant conditioning are variations and combinations of those four simple relationships between some response and a positive or aversive stimulus.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Reinforcement always increases the response being conditioned. Reinforcement can occur with either a positive or a negative stimulus. In positive reinforcement the response is always followed by a positive stimulus. In negative reinforcement the response always removes an already existing negative stimulus.
TINNY: That's correct. No matter whether a positive or negative stimulus is involved, reinforcement always results in an increase in the likelihood of the response being conditioned occurring in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Punishment always decreases the response being conditioned. Punishment can occur with either a positive or negative stimulus. In presentation punishment the response is always followed by a negative stimulus. In withdrawal punishment the response always removes an already existing positive stimulus.
TINNY: That's right. No matter whether a positive or negative stimulus is involved punishment always results in a decrease in the likelihood of the response being conditioned occurring in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a word that refers to the relationship that exists between the response and the following stimulus in all these different types of operant conditioning?
TINNY: There is a very good word which describes that relationship. The word is 'contingent', which refers to a dependent relationship. In the example of positive reinforcement, where the rat was conditioned to press the lever by receiving a food pellet each time it pressed the lever, you could say that receiving the food pellet was contingent on the response of pressing the lever. Getting a food pellet depended on pressing the lever. In negative reinforcement the removal of the aversive stimulus is contingent on, or depends on some certain response. In presentation punishment the occurrence of the aversive stimulus is contingent on some certain response. And, in withdrawal punishment the removal of the positive stimulus is contingent on some certain response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that word 'contingent' will be helpful as we talk about various types of operant conditioning.
TINNY: It is quite a useful word for describing these learning situations. When these conditioning procedures are set up it could be said you arrange the contingencies. You arrange the dependent relationships in which various stimuli will follow certain responses. By setting up these contingent relationships you can determine which responses will be conditioned and what effect that conditioning will have on the responses.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that will become clearer as you give more examples of operant conditioning.
TINNY: I'll ask you some questions to see how well you understand what we've discussed about operant conditioning so far.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be interesting.
TINNY: Operant conditioning can be used to influence not only the probability of a response occurring in the future, but it can also influence how often the response occurs. The influence of reinforcement results in higher rates of responding and the influence of punishment results in lower rates of responding. In these experimental situations this response rate provides a good simple measure of the effectiveness of the conditioning process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The rate of responding does seem to be an easy way to measure the changes which result from conditioning procedures.
TINNY: In the example of a rat in an experimental chamber, what would happen to the rate at which the rat pressed the lever if after each lever press the rat received a food pellet?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can I assume the rat is hungry?
TINNY: Yes, I should have mentioned that as one of the conditions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then the rate of the lever pressing would increase.
TINNY: What type of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was an example of positive reinforcement.
TINNY: How might what is occurring in the holistic analysis be described?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In human terms the rat might be saying, "I'm hungry and I want to get some food. There seems to be a contingent relationship between pressing this lever and getting food. Each time I press the lever out pops a food pellet. The appearance of the food pellet must depend on pressing the lever. I'll press the lever more often and get more food".
TINNY: That's a good answer. It's easier to describe the holistic analysis in human terms since rats don't have a symbolic language to think with.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I do realise, though, that the holistic analysis is much more than simple thoughts. It involves subtle perceptions, intricate interpretations, and complex memories.
TINNY: And much of it is subconscious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll still continue to answer questions about holistic analysis as if it were a human thought process.
TINNY: Would you give me an example of positive reinforcement in human learning?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If a young child was lonely at night and its mother was in another room the child might cry. If this situation had never happened before the child would not know that its mother would come in because of the crying. Right after the child begins crying its mother comes into the room. Crying is the response that is followed by the mother's entry into the room. The mother's presence is a positive stimulus. In the future the child would be more likely to cry when it wants its mother.
TINNY: That is an interesting example of positive reinforcement. In that example the response of crying which is being reinforced may become a problem in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This would indicate that not only desirable behaviour can be increased by reinforcement, but undesirable behaviour can also be increased by reinforcement.
TINNY: Operant conditioning is a description of a process. Processes tend to be amoral. They do not distinguish between right and wrong. It becomes the responsibility of those involved in the process to do so for the right ends.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see how important that responsibility must be.
TINNY: Now before I ask the next question I want to add one more feature to the experimental chamber.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that to be?
TINNY: The floor of the cage is hooked up so that it can give an electric shock.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.
TINNY: I don't think it's very nice either, but it has actually been done.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have one of these experimental learning chambers?
TINNY: I have one, but mine doesn't have a floor that can give an electric shock. Mine can only be used for positive reinforcement; but more about that later. Now I want to ask you what would happen to the rate of lever pressing if each time the rat pressed the lever it received an electric shock?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The response rate would decrease quickly until the rat would not press the lever at all.
TINNY: What type of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was an example of presentation punishment.
TINNY: How might what is occurring in the holistic analysis be described?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One of the survival tactics innate in rats, and all other animals, is taking appropriate action to avoid pain. When pain is perceived the holistic analysis seeks to determine what action may have brought about that pain. Since the avoidance of harm is of such crucial importance to all animals the holistic analysis tends to become quickly aware of the relationship that may occur between any response and pain. The relationship between pressing the lever and the electric shock would not go unnoticed. Even though the holistic analysis would not have enough information to be certain of the connection between pressing the lever and the pain experienced, advice would be given that, unless there were other compelling reasons to press the lever, even an uncertain relationship was sufficient to consider lever pressing too great a risk.
TINNY: How many times do you think the rat would press the lever if it received a shock each time?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Probably not more than two and possibly only one. Perhaps this survival mechanism is the basis of the proverb; once bitten, twice shy.
TINNY: I wouldn't be surprised. That proverb seems to convey the appropriate reaction to this type of conditioning process. If I was in the rat's place I'd be pretty leery of touching the lever a second time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be generally true that conditioning takes place more quickly in situations where aversive stimuli are involved?
TINNY: That is usually the case. Things we find very unpleasant usually affect us greatly. The more we dislike something the harder it is to ignore.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this mean that conditioning should usually involve aversive stimuli?
TINNY: I'll give a simple no to the question right now and answer it at length later.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This must be another thing that is not as it appears. The true answer will come from the new worldview.
TINNY: Would you give me an example of presentation punishment in human learning?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A very young child sees a lit candle for the first time. The child has never been burnt by fire or told that fire can burn. The child is attracted to the pretty, coloured, dancing flame. The child reaches out and touches the flame, immediately experiencing pain and pulling its hand from the flame. The response was touching the flame with the hand. The following aversive stimulus was the pain from the burn. This experience results in a decreased probability that in a future circumstance that the child would emit the response of reaching out and touching a flame.
TINNY: Since the child was not badly burned by the flame would you call this a good learning experience? It did teach the child that fire can cause harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is good that the child learned to be careful around fire. It was not good that the child was burnt. It would have been better if the child could have come to the realisation of the danger of fire by inner conscious processes rather than by forceful external means.
TINNY: You have not forgotten our earlier discussions on other subjects. It's good that you see the connecting link. At the human level it is freewill that must prevail over external control. Severe pain is an external influence which overcomes freewill and imposes control by force. The imposition of will by force is the definition of evil. While good can come from evil, at the human level when force is used to control behaviour any good outcome is outweighed in the long term by the evil outcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There can be no future but a positive future.
TINNY: What would happen to the rate of lever pressing if the conditions in the experimental chamber were changed so that food which was already available in the cage was now removed each time the rat pressed the lever?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The rat would soon quit pressing the lever.
TINNY: What type of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was an example of withdrawal punishment.
TINNY: How might what was occurring in the holistic analysis be described?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Until the lever is pressed for the first time, after the changed contingency whereby the response that once brought food now removes food, the assessment of the holistic analysis was that all is well. Feelings of hunger were being reduced by the intake of food. Due to the conditioning which had taken place when pressing the lever had been followed by food during positive reinforcement the holistic analysis had come to accept that pressing the lever was an appropriate response given the existing circumstances. Now under the new contingency, when pressing the lever removes food, the rat once again presses the lever. After this first response under the new contingency the holistic analysis begins to perceive different information. This new information conflicts with the old assessment. Pressing the lever is now associated with the removal of food rather than the presentation of food. At first the holistic analysis is not certain that pressing the lever removes food because the interaction of memory in the holistic analysis still gives weight to the belief that pressing the lever will be followed by food. The past learning, in the beginning, takes precedent over the new learning as the holistic analysis advises pressing the lever again. With each lever press the weight of evidence builds up an increasing certainty that lever pressing is now connected with the removal of food rather than the presentation of food. Holistic analysis then advises lever pressing be discontinued.
TINNY: That was a very good explanation of what might take place during the holistic analysis. And would you give me an example of withdrawal punishment in human learning?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There was a family with several young children who tended to get excessively noisy while they were watching cartoons on television. The parents obtained a noise measuring device which could be hooked up to the television in such a way that when the noise reached a certain level it would turn the television off. The children made noise as usual and the noise meter turned off the television. The response is making a loud noise, and the positive stimulus, which is removed contingent on the response, is the cartoon show on television. After the television had been turned off a few times when the children were excessively noisy the children quit making excessive noise while watching television.
TINNY: I could also imagine times when having the television turned off could be considered desirable, or even rewarding.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you said, no stimulus is in itself positive or negative. It is the perception of the receiver of the stimulus which determines whether the stimulus is positive or negative.
TINNY; What would happen to the rate of lever pressing if the electrified floor in the experimental chamber was shocking the rat and pressing the lever turned off the electricity?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The rate of lever pressing would increase very quickly.
TINNY: What kind of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was an example of negative reinforcement.
TINNY: Reinforcement is another word for reward. Can any experience that involves a painful electric shock be considered rewarding?
