PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before you go on, please tell me how lighting the cigarette already serves as a discriminative stimulus, as a response which is reinforced, and as a reinforcing stimulus.
TINNY: To understand those different functions smoking behaviour must be viewed as a chain. Lighting the cigarette is a discriminative stimulus in that chain when it serves as a cue that smoking the cigarette will be reinforced. If the cigarette had not been lit, smoking the cigarette would not be rewarding. Lighting the cigarette is a reinforced response when it is followed by a reward such as satisfaction that the cigarette was ready to smoke. And, lighting the cigarette is a reinforcing stimulus when it follows the response of holding a match near the end of the cigarette.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's clear now; you can go on with the explanation. How does recording a cigarette lighting response function as a punishing stimulus in the smoking behaviour chain?
TINNY: It takes some period of time to take out a notebook and record a response. The focus of attention during that period of time is directed toward reducing smoking behaviour. In that way, recording the cigarette lighting response may introduce thoughts about the harm of smoking, about the desire to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, may bring regrets about lighting another cigarette, or may reaffirm that the recording is being done to reduce smoking behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see how all that might reduce the number of cigarettes smoked a bit, but not a lot.
TINNY: I particularly used an example where recording the response to be reduced would not be very effective. I did this to point out that it is even possible to plan recording procedures so they will influence behaviour more effectively. If you wanted to increase the probability that the recording process would decrease the rate of cigarette smoking you would not choose to record the cigarette lighting response.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: The recording procedure then breaks into the chain of smoking behaviour after the cigarette is already lit. After the cigarette is lit there is a very high probability the chain would continue unbroken and the cigarette would be smoked.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What aspect of smoking behaviour would you choose to record if you wanted to make it more likely the number of cigarettes smoked would decrease?
TINNY: You would have to break the chain before the cigarette was lit. I would probably record the response of picking up the packet of cigarettes. If the plan is to stop and record the response after the cigarettes have been picked up, but before lighting a cigarette, the recording provides the cue at the ideal time to think about reasons not to smoke. The thoughts brought about by recording the response of picking up the cigarettes may result in a decision at that point to put the cigarettes down and not smoke at that moment. In this example, recording could be considered a discriminative stimulus rather than punishment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is important to evaluate where to break into the chain which makes up any behaviour. We can then choose to make that break at a point which will maximise the likelihood of achieving the desired result.
TINNY: This example points out how, by the objective analysis of behaviour patterns, we can increase our ability to take conscious responsibility for our lives and development. Every aspect of each behaviour can provide some objective knowledge which will allow greater exercise of freewill.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that example important as a technique to stop smoking?
TINNY: The importance of all of these examples is not in the specifics of the example. The importance is in the general understanding of how to view behaviour more objectively, and learning how to consciously alter the environmental circumstances in such a way as to achieve some desired goal behaviour, which is presented in these examples.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't suggest that example as a good way to stop smoking?
TINNY: There are much more effective ways than that to stop smoking. The desire for good health would be sufficient reason for me if I was a smoker.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is because you are a child of the new consciousness. Many people are still hampered by the old consciousness and would find it difficult to stop smoking.
TINNY: The chemicals in tobacco have the effect of a very powerful drug. Their hold on smokers is strong. There are also the powerful social influences. People would not smoke unless they were conditioned to smoke. Smoking tobacco is not part of the harmonious existence with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any one factor which is most responsible for influencing people to begin smoking?
TINNY: The primary reason that people begin smoking is due to the modelling influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mentioned 'modelling' earlier in our discussion. What does modelling mean?
TINNY: Modelling is a form of conditioning. It refers to the learning which takes place by seeing others undergo some reinforcing or punishing situation. Modelling involves learning by seeing the learning experiences of others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me an example?
TINNY: I'll start with a very simple example. Fashion is a good example of the effect of modelling. Perhaps one person wears a different style of shoe. If that person receives positive notice from others for wearing those shoes, soon other people who saw those shoes being favourably noticed will start wearing them also. If the style is particularly attractive or unique the fashion media might take notice of people wearing that new type of shoe. Other people seeing reports favourably mentioning that new shoe style will start wearing those shoes, and then be noticed positively by others. That process sometimes sweeps much of the world, not just with shoes, but with all items of clothing. Sometimes it happens with hairstyles, sometimes with slang words or sayings. All of that is part of the spread of fashion. It is a conditioning process which takes place through modelling. People seeing others rewarded for the response of wearing certain clothes, styling their hair a certain way, or saying certain words will copy that behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are they hoping to be rewarded for their imitative behaviour?
TINNY: I think people would often say they are not; but, I think that must be a factor. Modelling occurs even without conscious attempts at imitation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you heard of the saying, "monkey see, monkey do?"
TINNY: That saying also refers to the tendency of people to imitate the behaviour of others. Just about all aspects of operant conditioning have been noticed in human life, even though it hadn't been realised those factors formed a comprehensive theory by which to understand learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How common is the influence of modelling in human life?
TINNY: There would be few human thoughts, words, or deeds which have not been influenced during their development by the effects of modelling.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me about a few other instances of modelling.
TINNY: Our choice of foods is heavily influenced by modelling. This has resulted in foods considered acceptable and desirable by some cultures, being forbidden and repulsive by other cultures. We learn our preferences in food largely from what we see those around us eating as we grow up. If a child were to grow up among people who consider live grubs to be a delicacy, that child would feel entirely happy and comfortable popping a live grub into their mouth. That behaviour would be considered so repulsive to people who had not grown up seeing people eat live grubs that they could hardly imagine anyone could do such a thing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We were discussing the causes of cigarette smoking when you introduced the concept of behavioural influence through modelling. Do people who begin smoking do so because they have grown up among people who smoke?
TINNY: The influences on smoking behaviour are many. Not only do people close around us have an influence through modelling, but because our environment has been made much wider by the media and the entertainment industry people model the behaviour of those they have never been close to or have never even seen in person. When famous people, be they politicians, sports heroes, or the stars of film, television, or the music world, are seen smoking there is some influence by modelling occurring. That effect is particularly strong in children and young adults, as they are still in the early stages of development and are seeking role models. Sometimes the influence of the famous is exploited by those who wish to sell more of their product and the modelling effect is used consciously to create a market which, in the case of cigarettes, is selling an early death.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds pretty unscrupulous.
TINNY: That is nothing compared to the lengths some people will go for financial gain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If children were taught to understand the influences upon their development from an early age, would techniques such as those used in selling cigarettes be as effective?
TINNY: Once the laws of learning are known well and widely all wrong influence will be less effective.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Cigarettes are not the only product which attempts to use the modelling effect to create a market, are they?
TINNY: Since modelling is such a powerful influence it is used by anyone who wants to create the belief that their product is desirable. In advertising it is extremely common to see virtually any product trying to gain from the association of attractive people enjoying that product. Modelling has a general impact also. People can be influenced by the modelling effect of a class of people. For this reason products have been promoted as having as association with those who are generally rich, powerful, sexy, intelligent, macho, beautiful, or any other characteristic thought to be generally desired. Those who market their products in that way want people to believe they can be like the general class model in the advertisements just by using their products.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's not very fair is it?
TINNY: Neither is it an honest thing to do.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How should products be advertised?
TINNY: They shouldn't.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean there should be no advertising?
TINNY: Correct, there should be no advertising. Each product should be its own advertising. If the product is not desirable enough in itself to attract people to it, then perhaps the product is unworthy or unnecessary. Perhaps there is no reason for such a product to exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears the goal of advertising is to condition positive attitudes toward certain products whether the product is intrinsically desirable or not, and influence the consumer to purchase those products whether the product is needed or not.
TINNY: Those are the goals of advertising; and, those goals remain the purpose of advertising regardless of the desires or even the best interest of the consumer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: From that description advertising seems to be a form of brainwashing.
TINNY: It would be correct to describe much of advertising as brainwashing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't some advertising just present honest information about the product?
TINNY: It's true, some advertising does do only that; but, it still takes away some freedom of choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does even truthful advertising influence the consumer?
TINNY: People should be free to seek out the products they desire, and not have unsolicited information about products imposing into their lives. We each have only so much time to live our earthly lives, and it is a tremendous imposition to have any of those precious moments wasted by attending to unsolicited advertising.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be acceptable to provide honest information about a product to anyone who requested it?
TINNY: That would seem a reasonable way to do things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you said there should be no advertising.
TINNY: I wouldn't describe providing honest information about a product on request as advertising. Advertising means bringing public notice to a product. When a product is brought to public notice that implies no act of will on the public's part to receive the information. When providing information about a product on request, there is an act of will on the part of whoever makes the request.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you would call advertising evil?
TINNY: I would, since advertising is imposed on people, thereby reducing the expression of their freewill.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is an awful lot of time, money, and energy which goes into advertising.
TINNY: I look forward to the day when advertising is no more, and the total expenditure now used wrongly on advertising can be directed to constructive purposes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me more about modelling.
TINNY: Modelling plays a major part in a very serious problem area in human behaviour, aggression. Almost all aggressive behaviour in human beings has its origins in modelling.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Human beings are considered by many to be one of the most aggressive of all animals.
TINNY: Well, as we have already discussed in some detail, human beings are not animals. I think what is meant by that statement is that human beings are innately aggressive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are human beings born aggressive?
TINNY: No, human beings are not born aggressive. Human beings are born with the potential to be aggressive. Whether or not that potential for aggression is expressed depends on the circumstances of each individual's life. Unfortunately, seeing other people acting aggressively is a very common experience in human society. Aggressive behaviour occurs in many homes, in schools, on the streets, and is almost invariably depicted in movies and television. Aggressive behaviour in real life often is seen to be successful. Aggression is successful because force often brings immediate changes, that being the nature of the material universe for billions of years when external control was needed to maintain progression. Aggression is also often seen to be successful in that those who act aggressively are frequently held in some esteem. In those cultures where successful aggression is held in highest esteem, there tends to be a more aggressive populace. When children see aggression being rewarded, children will be likely to imitate that aggressive behaviour.
There was an interesting study done when children were placed in a room with a number of toys. Among the toys was a large inflatable clown which was heavily weighted on the bottom so that if knocked over the clown would become upright again. Each child was left alone in the room and watched through a one-way mirror. The children tended to play quietly with the various toys. After the children had been playing for some period of time an adult would enter the room, talk in a friendly manner with the child for a while, and then start kicking and punching the inflatable clown. The adult would then leave the room. Almost every child who underwent the experience of seeing the adult act aggressively then punched and kicked the inflatable clown after the adult left the room. It seems very likely that children in the natural environment, who see mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, teachers, friends, or actors on television and in movies acting aggressively, will imitate aspects of that violent behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Violence breeds violence.
TINNY: And peace breeds peace.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it incredible that parents and teachers condition children to act aggressively. I doubt that's what they want to teach children.
TINNY: They probably don't realise they are teaching children to be aggressive by their own aggressive behaviour. Parents and teachers often act aggressively toward children in an attempt to teach them not to be aggressive. Sometimes children are hit by adults to stop them from hitting other children.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What word do you think best describes hitting children to stop them from hitting other children?
TINNY: Ludicrous.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does ludicrous mean?
TINNY: It means ridiculous or absurd.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think much of what people do is actually working against their intended goals?
TINNY: Much more than would ever be expected.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Conditioning seems to play such a large part in our lives and development. It's a shame that conditioning is not done in a way which is consistent with our goals. It appears that much of what has long been believed to be human nature was actually the effect of unnoticed conditioning factors in human society.
TINNY: Human nature is very poorly understood. A large amount of current human behaviour is in opposition to the true nature of human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can human nature be known?
TINNY: To know human nature requires knowledge of the natural order of existence. True human nature is an ideal. To exist perfectly in accord with natural law is the ideal of human nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But human beings do not live in perfect harmony with natural law. Why is that?
TINNY: We humans are going through a difficult period in the envolution of life. Because of the major developmental step we have taken through the expression of self-reflective, human level, consciousness, we are no longer animals. Although we have reached a new stage in the developmental progression of life, we still have bodies identical to the animals with the exception of that part of the brain function which accounts for our self-reflective consciousness. Animals, through billions of years of adaptation, have developed ways of living which are in accord with the natural order. That which is in harmony with natural law at the animal level, is not necessarily in harmony with natural law at the human level. Our bodies and many structures of our brains are attempting to fulfill their original functions and live in accord with the natural order at the animal level. This causes great difficulties, because for the human species to survive and progress we must transcend those aspects of our lives bound up with animal nature, and express fully our new human nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So part of every human being is acting in accord with the animal nature and part is acting in accord with human nature.
TINNY: That is true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that conflict between the animal nature and human nature is a great difficulty faced by the human species. Could things be any other way? Don't we have to experience that conflict?
TINNY: You are right. We must undergo the conflict between our animal past and our human present. We all have those two different influences acting upon us. This would be a difficult period even in the best of circumstances, but a third influence exists which is greatly increasing the difficulty in making the transition. That third influence has increased the difficulty so much that it is no longer certain that the transition will be successfully made. The conflict between the animal and the human nature may become so severe as to bring destruction to all life on this planet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that third influence?
TINNY: The third influence is the effect of conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I thought conditioning was a natural part of our existence. Are you saying conditioning is wrong?
TINNY: I'm not saying the process of conditioning is wrong, not at all. I'm saying the affect of conditioning is wrong. Conditioning ought to be the means by which we achieve the successful transition from our animal past to our human present. Instead, conditioning has been powerfully used to ensure the continued and ever increased influence of our animal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How has conditioning been used to maintain the supremacy of our animal nature?
TINNY: At the human level of existence it would be natural to express more fully the true characteristics of human nature. Those human characteristics should naturally prevail over the influence of our animal past. This natural transition has been hindered by the fact that human society has developed in such a way that expressions of the characteristics of our past animal nature have been highly rewarded. At the same time the expression of our true human nature has either failed to receive the reinforcement or has been punished.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did this sad situation come to be? We should be working toward our destined goal, not fighting against it. Human society should nurture our aspirations to a higher level of existence, not seek to strengthen the ties to an animalistic past.
TINNY: The problem has always been ignorance; ignorance of our true nature, ignorance of our true purpose, ignorance of our destined goal, and ignorance of how to achieve that grand goal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Haven't there been times in human history when our true purpose was known, when our destiny was known?
TINNY: There have been a number of times when most of the truth of our existence was known, but that was not enough.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why was that knowledge not sufficient?
TINNY: Because even when our nature, our purpose, and our destiny were known, it was indeed rare to also know the right path.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There has been a time when all were known at once, wasn't there?
TINNY: There was, but even that was not enough. Although all was known, those truths were neither fully understood nor available to everyone.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What will it take to overcome the conditioning which binds us to our animal past?
TINNY: Truth must be universally known. If only some know the truth and follow the right path they will be conquered by those who lack truth and follow the wrong path.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can some be right and lose, while others are wrong and win?
TINNY: I can assure you that any victory gained by wrong action will only be temporary. Victory, when achieved by right action, shall be eternal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Our true nature, purpose, destiny, and the right path are all contained in the new worldview. Our nature is to be the stage, in the developmental progression of matter in the physical universe, which has just passed the turning point where individual exercise of freewill first surpasses external control. Our purpose is to progress along the developmental continuum to the most positive expression of all characteristics. Our destiny is to become perfect in every aspect. And the right path, in fact the only path, is the way of peace and love.
TINNY: Briefly and generally, that is correct.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why couldn't an individual, a small group or some segment of the total human race succeed by knowing those truths fully and in depth, while living in accord with the right path?
TINNY: Success is determined by the survival and progression of the species, not of the individual. Groups of any size, unless they encompass the whole of human society, have always succumbed to the immediate power of force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you use the term "force and aggression" to describe negative influences?
TINNY: It would be correct if I left out the word aggression, since force includes all wrong influence. I include the word aggression, though, because it portrays the most blatant use of force in human behaviour. It is important to the successful spread of knowledge that effective images be created. When I say the right path is peace and love, it provides a good mental image to contrast with the wrong path of force and aggression. In this way of expressing the right and wrong paths, all the words are actually mental symbols. Other words could take their place, but all would be signifying the same underlying truth. In this comparison of the paths of right and wrong, force is the contrasting symbol to peace, and aggression is the contrasting symbol to love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say force and aggression you don't simply mean physical strength, fighting, and battles do you?
TINNY: Those are just a small part of that which is force and aggression. Force and aggression include all forms of influence which derive their power from the material plane of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was a very general statement. Would you give me some specific example of influence by force and aggression?
TINNY: I will, but remember, all those influences derive their power from the material existence. Matter in the physical universe is directed by those influences. The non-physical component in matter is directed by freewill, influenced by the attraction of perfect existence. Included among the influences of force and aggression at the human level are material wealth, power, fame, the seeking of pleasure, and the avoidance of pain. Anything which conditions us in a way that enhances the attractiveness or increases the practice of any of those forms of force and aggression is wrong conditioning. It is just as wrong as conditioning children to be aggressive by fighting in front of them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some other forms which the influence of force and aggression take?
TINNY: Those wrong influences also have internal expression. Some of these would be greed, envy, and lust. Those are but a few. There are many more, not all so obvious and some yet unnamed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of those wrong influences have been called sins by various religions.
TINNY: That is a way of expressing the effect of some of those wrong influences on our progression. They hold us back from attaining our destined goal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think it is right to consider certain aspects of human existence as sins?
TINNY: I don't mind the use of the word sin to describe certain things that hinder us in our quest for perfection; but, I view the word sin very objectively, just as I view good and evil objectively. I think the concept of sin can be harmful if it leads to feelings of guilt. Guilt is another form of wrong influence. Guilt is an attempt to alter our beliefs or behaviour by force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't guilt a natural human emotion which we experience when we have done wrong?
TINNY: If by guilt you only meant experiencing the feeling of having done wrong then that could be considered natural, but guilt so often includes the feeling that you are a bad person for having done the wrong. Guilt in that form is not a natural human emotion. Guilt in that form has been conditioned into the human mental process. It has become a part of our inner speech.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is it possible to know what is natural and what is not natural?
TINNY: To fully answer that question I would have to go into a long explanation of natural and unnatural as perceived from the relative reality and the absolute reality. If you think back to our discussion of good and evil you will see the essence of this explanation. I think now a briefer answer should be sufficient. From the relative point of view those aspects of our existence which are necessary to ensure our continued progression are natural; and, those aspects of our existence which are not necessary to ensure our continued progression are unnatural. From the absolute point of view those aspects of existence which can be perfectly manifested are natural; and those aspects of existence which cannot be perfectly manifested are unnatural.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can anything come to exist that is not natural?
TINNY: Many things exist as potential which if expressed would be unnatural.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me an example of that happening?
TINNY: I'll use guilt as an example. Obviously guilt does exist. Guilt is a combined acknowledgement of having done wrong, and the belief that having done wrong makes you a bad person. Now there is nothing harmful in anyone acknowledging they have done wrong, indeed that is a healthy and good thing to do. The harm comes from believing ourselves to be bad because we have done a wrong thing. Believing ourselves bad because we have acted wrongly is an internal form of punishment. The wrong action is the response, which is followed by the thought saying either directly or indirectly, "I am bad". That thought acts as a negative stimulus. When a response is followed by a negative stimulus it often reduces the likelihood of that response occurring again in the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that if we follow some response by a positive thought, that response is likely to increase; and, if we follow some response by a negative thought, that response is likely to decrease? Do our thoughts act upon us and condition us in the same way that external influences do?
TINNY: There is no difference in the way that external or internal influences affect our future actions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would anyone have first begun punishing themselves internally by guilt?
TINNY: No one would punish themselves by guilt if they had not been conditioned to do so. That is why I say guilt is not a natural human emotion. The human mind has all the necessary human characteristics which would allow guilt to be expressed. Those abilities exist only as a potential until conditioning brings about their expression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the characteristics necessary for the expression of guilt?
TINNY: The main requirement is self-reflective consciousness. That is, a mind which can consider the past and future symbolically. Self-reflective consciousness is so-called because it is able to reflect on what has occurred in the past and to make predictions as to future happenings. A being who can reflect on their past behaviour has the opportunity to judge that past behaviour as to whether it was successful or unsuccessful, wise or unwise, helpful or harmful, good or bad. Self-reflective consciousness also has the ability to create any combination of symbols which are known to it. That means any possible thought can arise in the mind. Those attributes of self-reflective consciousness are sufficient to allow guilt to be created. The mind recreates the response in mental images, and follows that mental image by a thought constructed so as to be perceived negatively. For example a girl who had pushed her little brother down the day before might recreate the response of pushing her brother as a mental image, and feel bad for having done so. Even the words we use to describe that experience, "feel bad", can refer to the fact that we are saying "I am bad" for our having done that wrong action. We could, and sometimes do, say we "feel sorry", but that expresses a different and more constructive thought process. So the question becomes, how did people first learn to experience guilt for their wrong behaviour?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you know the answer to that question?
TINNY: When we delve into the distant past of the human race we should not think we know exactly how things happened, but better we use our present knowledge to understand how things might have happened.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How might the first guilt have been instilled in the human mind?
TINNY: From the earliest times in human history there have been individuals or groups who exercised control over others. Much of that control would have been exercised by the use of force. There are a number of difficulties which occur when negative control is used. One of those problems is that while negative control effectively influences behaviour when the controller is clearly present, the influence is often lost when the controller is absent.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would the proverb, "when the cat's away the mice will play" describe that failure of negative control?
TINNY: That proverb would seem to describe those situations quite well. That problem, where influence is lost when the controller is not present to use force to maintain control, can be overcome if there is some way to have the negative control always present. The self-reflective abilities of human consciousness provide just such an opportunity. If some way can be found to make the person being controlled also be the one who applies the force or negative control, then the person being controlled is always under the desired influence. If a person can be conditioned to believe behaving in certain ways makes them bad, they will see themselves as bad when they behave in those ways. They will then also try to avoid behaving in that way to avoid being bad. Parents often condition their children in this manner by saying, "you're a bad boy" or "you're a bad girl" after the child had performed some behaviour which the parent considers wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the behaviour which the child is conditioned to feel guilty about always truly wrong behaviour?
TINNY: Guilt is a conditioned emotional reaction to whatever the person in control thinks is wrong. What the person in control believes to be wrong may not necessarily be wrong and, in fact, could even be right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't that cause the child to develop very mixed up feelings about right and wrong?
TINNY: Guilt over right behaviour is worse than guilt over wrong behaviour; but, all guilt is harmful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were you indicating you believe parents were responsible, historically, for the first use of guilt as a way to control their children?
TINNY: While that's possible, I think it more likely leaders within social groupings attempted to gain control over their followers by creating feelings which we might now consider as religious guilt. The basic method could have been to have people believe that the gods desired life to be lived in accordance with established rules, and that any person who violated those rules would be bad in the eyes of the gods. The gods, knowing everything, would be aware of every transgression, therefore the people knew each time they acted in violation of the rules the gods would be thinking badly of them. They were shamed before God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If natural law is established by God, might God not think badly of anyone who violates that natural law?
TINNY: It is not the way of God to think badly of any person. Any person who considers themselves shamed before God is mistaken. We can feel shame in ourselves, and others may feel ashamed of us; but God is never ashamed of us. God understands us in the most full and complete way possible. Besides, many of the laws and rules attributed to the gods early in the history of human society did not come from God, but were an expression of the beliefs and desires of those who held positions of leadership.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you think the origins of guilt lie in early religious practices?
TINNY: That is quite possible. If it wasn't exactly like that, it was almost surely some similar circumstance that developed the first feelings of guilt.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes animals act as if they feel guilt.
TINNY: That's true. I have seen dogs that have done something wrong act in a way that I would call guilty behaviour if I saw a person act that way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that really guilt?
TINNY: All characteristics expressed at any level of material development have their origins in the previous levels. The actions of dogs that have done wrong are more primitive expressions of the characteristic called guilt at the human level. It isn't really guilt that the dogs are feeling though. We humans tend to consider the behaviour of animals in human terms. A dog would express 'guilt' in circumstances where similar previous behaviour has been punished. The dog's guilty behaviour is the way dogs indicate submission to a dominant being. It is actually a pattern of behaviour developed to allow an escape from the aggression of more dominant dogs in the pack.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is a word which means giving human attributes to things other than human, isn't there?
TINNY: The word is, 'anthropomorphise'. It means to ascribe human form or human characteristics to beings or things not human.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do people anthropomorphise to other than animals?
TINNY: Human characteristics have been attributed to almost everything at one time or another. Such widely diverse things as mountains, trees, weather, stars, the moon, seas, rivers, ships, planes, and cars have all been seen as having human attributes. Gods also have been considered to have both human form and human characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What has been the effect of humanising the form and attributes of God?
TINNY: It has placed limits upon God's true nature. It has made it even more difficult to know the true nature of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does God not have human form and human attributes?
TINNY: Aspects of God can express all things; but all aspects of God are less than the unity of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are we conditioned to believe in God and is our understanding of God's nature conditioned?
TINNY: That's true. Both our belief in God and our understanding of God's nature are conditioned.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it bother you that those beliefs and sacred aspects of human life are conditioned?
TINNY: It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Conditioning is the natural way that we come to know the reality of our existence. My experience of God is no less real, sacred, or beautiful because it is conditioned.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are some beliefs about God conditioned by accidental reinforcement?
TINNY: Some beliefs about God and God's nature would have come about through accidental reinforcement. Perhaps that is why the other name for this conditioning process is 'superstitious learning'.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does considering some religious beliefs to be products of superstitious learning belittle religious faith?
TINNY: We must view all things objectively. Not all which is thought to be true about God and God's nature is real. I would never belittle religious beliefs, but I wouldn't want to believe something to be true about God which was not true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give an example of accidental conditioning which might influence someone's religious beliefs?
TINNY: It is commonly believed that God directly intervenes in our daily lives. There are many instances where people think they have proof of this intervention. Much of this so-called proof is actually a failure to realise the effects of accidental conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying God does not directly intervene in our daily lives?
TINNY: I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there is sometimes a misunderstanding of the true nature of the relationships between events in our lives and their causes. Some events in our lives attributed to God's direct intervention are actually natural occurrences; but, because the full circumstances of the event were not obvious, their occurrence is believed to be God's intervention. An example can be seen by the experiences of a teen-age boy who had been standing in front of a car which had been parked facing a fence.
TINNY: Right. While he was standing between the front of the car and the fence the driver of the car came back, got in, and started the engine of the car in preparation for driving away. Because the car had been parked facing the fence it was, of course, necessary to back-up before driving off. The boy standing between the car and the fence all of a sudden had the thought he had better move just in case the car came forward. The driver put the car into gear and drove right into the fence. If the boy had not moved he would have been crushed between the car and the fence. Many years later the boy, now a man in his middle age, still recalls that event. He says that it confirmed to him God's direct intervention in our lives. That event also strengthened his belief in the existence of God. Occasionally when talking about religious matters with others he recounts the story of that event. Those hearing of how his life was saved, agree with the man that it was God's direct intervention which caused him to move from the front of the car, thus avoiding being crushed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you believe it was the direct intervention by God that saved the boy from being crushed?
TINNY: No. I think it is very unlikely that God's direct intervention saved the boy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many, perhaps most, people who believe God exists would attribute those events to God's intervention. Why don't you?
TINNY: I have no reason to.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But obviously you believe in God's existence.
TINNY: I do more than believe in God's existence; I know of the existence of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why then do you say you have no reason to accept that boy was saved by the direct intervention of God?
TINNY: Because the boy's behaviour of moving out from between the car and the fence was a reasonable human response in those circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was obvious the driver must back the car up. It was not logical to expect the car to be driven forward into the fence.
TINNY: What you say is true; but, one thing everyone learns is that human beings make mistakes. Virtually every person who drives a car has at some time put the car into the wrong gear. The response of putting the car into a forward gear is so common that it becomes almost an automatic response. At times, while intending to back-up, the car is put either mistakenly or unconsciously into a forward gear. That this is so is a fact many teen-age boys might know. In learning terms the situation, where the boy found himself between a car that was being started up and the wall, functioned as a discriminative stimulus. This was a cue that harm could be forthcoming unless some action was taken. The boy's response was to move out from between the car and the fence. He had learned to behave in that way by generalising from other situations where moving out of the way had averted harm. That general behaviour was learned by negative reinforcement, since the response of moving out of the way removes an ongoing threat of harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you make it more clear exactly how those events provided accidental reinforcement for the belief that God directly intervened to save the boy from harm?
TINNY: In this case the response being accidentally rewarded was a mental response, the belief that God intervenes directly in people's lives. The reinforcing stimulus in the example was when the boy moved out from between the front of the car and the fence and thereby was saved from harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But the boy moved from in front of the car before he had the thought that God saved him. You said that in accidental conditioning the reinforcing stimulus comes after the response. In this instance the response of thinking God had saved him from harm came after the reinforcing stimulus of moving from between the car and the fence then seeing the car crash into the fence.
TINNY: The human mind can create internal situations where thoughts serve both as responses and reinforcing stimuli. Although it was after he had moved and not been crushed, the thought that God's intervention had caused him to move was followed by a mental re-creation of those events. In that mental re-creation his belief that God intervenes directly in our lives was followed by a remembrance of the life saving events which had just taken place. That re-created mental sequence reinforced his belief that God directly intervenes in our lives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I still fail to see why that reinforcement was accidental.
TINNY: Perhaps it is unfortunate that instances of reinforcement of this type ever got called accidental. What the term 'accidental' really means is that there is no contingent relationship between the response and the reinforcing stimulus, they are events related only by time. In other words the response is incorrectly believed to have brought about some certain reinforcing stimulus. The reinforcing stimulus which followed the response did so for some reason other than because that response occurred.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If I understand correctly you are saying it was the effects of the boy's past learning which resulted in him moving out from between the car and the fence before the car was driven into that fence. He didn't realise the true reasons why he moved, perhaps because it seemed obvious the car should have moved backward, not forward. He might have reasonably thought he could have expected to be safe if he remained where he was. Since he moved with no apparent justification, and that move saved him from being crushed, he attributed the motivation for his move to God's intervention.
TINNY: That's a very good explanation of what I have been trying to say. In fact he even used the words, "something told me I had better get out of the way" to describe his reason for moving out of the way of harm. Well, something did tell him he should get out of the way of potential harm, it was his past conditioning that did so. He failed to realise the effects of his past learning experiences and so attributed his narrow escape from harm to God's direct intervention.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that in this instance God did not intervene?
TINNY: I don't know all that God does or does not do. I am pointing out that there is good reason to believe that the circumstances of those particular events fall well within the range of natural human behaviour. There is no good reason to credit God's direct intervention with saving the boy from being crushed. It is much more likely in this case that the boy saved himself than that he was saved by God's direct intervention.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could God have directly intervened to save the boy from being crushed?
TINNY: Of course. I place no limits on God's powers.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it matter if the boy believed it was God's intervention which saved him from harm even if it was actually his own doing?
TINNY: I know that truth aids our progression. That is the nature of our reality. Just as we must endeavour to know all other truths, we must endeavour to know the truth of God's nature. Any false belief about God's nature belittles God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if that mistaken belief about God is a fine and honourable one?
TINNY: No matter how fine sounding and well-intentioned untruth is, it cannot but lessen God's true glory. All false beliefs cause harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In the example about the boy avoiding harm, are the later memories and recounting of those events also part of superstitious conditioning?
TINNY: They are. Each time the events, and the belief that those events were proof of God's direct intervention in our lives, were re-created in memory it was another incident of accidental or superstitious conditioning which further strengthened the original conditioning. Also each time that story was told to others the mental images created in the minds of those hearing the story also conditioned in those others the belief in God's direct intervention in our lives by accidental reinforcement.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that all influence which was fair, honest, and positive was acceptable. The influence of the misinterpretation of those events surrounding the boys move to safety did not fulfill those requirements, did it?
TINNY: As I defined fair, honest, and positive, the influence of those events did truly fulfill none of those three requirements.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Before we began discussing conditioning in relation to religious beliefs, you were telling me how something which was not natural, such as guilt, could come to exist.
TINNY: Human level consciousness has among its characteristics the necessary components of guilt. Those components can relate to each other in a manner which expresses guilt. Since the components of consciousness which have the potential to create guilt do exist they can be forced into expression by conditioning. Guilt can be forced into expression by conditioning even though guilt is not a natural human characteristic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do many things exist within us only as potential, never to be expressed?
TINNY: The aspects of our potential which are not expressed are perhaps greater in number than those which are expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What actually determines that which is within our potential?
TINNY: Our potential, and the potential of all material forms, is determined by the particular arrangements of the subatomic particles which make up the physical body.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines which aspects of our potential will be expressed?
TINNY: It is the interaction of physical form with the environment that determines which facets of our potential will be expressed. In terms of human existence it is our individual physical make-up and our past learning history, our conditioning, which determines what aspects of our potential will be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And is the effect of every interaction with the environment governed by the laws of learning?
TINNY: Yes. There is no interaction with the environment, which we experience, that does not have some conditioning effect; and, the nature of the influence which comes from each of those experiences is determined by the laws of learning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems there is very little of what we are that is not conditioned.
TINNY: It is as if we come into the world as a blank slate, to written upon by the hand of experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where then is our freewill?
TINNY: We have, through our human consciousness, ultimate control over the hand of experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The analogy of the blank slate is true for animals also, isn't it?
TINNY: That's right, animals also come into the world full of unexpressed potential. It is each animal's experiences with the environment that determine which aspects of their potential will be expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since animals do not possess self-reflective consciousness they must not be able to exercise ultimate control over the hand of experience, as we human beings are able to do.
TINNY: All animals are more influenced by external factors than by internal factors. Without greater internal influence than external influence freewill can never surpass the external deterministic factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give an example of experience affecting the expression of some potential?
TINNY: The learning experiment where a rat is taught to press a lever in an experimental learning chamber will serve as an example. A rat when it is born has within its nature a great many potential behaviours. One of those behaviours, existing only as potential, is the lever pressing response. Most rats will never have an opportunity to express their potential to press a lever. The rat in the experimental learning chamber is presented with an environment which allows the response of lever pressing to be expressed. Because of previous general learning experiences, the rat would press the lever a few times each hour as part of its inquisitive exploration of the environment. When reinforcement follows those lever pressing responses the rat will press the lever hundreds of times each hour. Responding at a zero rate, several times each hour, or hundreds of times each hour are within the rat's potential. The particular rate at which the rat actually presses the lever is determined by its environmental circumstances and its experiences during conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Apparently three factors determine the expression of any characteristic. That characteristic must exist as potential. The opportunity to express that characteristic must arise. And, the conditioning of that characteristic as determined by the laws of learning.
TINNY: It is true those three factors determine the expression of any characteristic.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me an example of experience affecting the expression of some potential at the human level?
TINNY: The sport of tennis provides a good example. Every person, without debilitating physical or mental handicaps, has within themselves the potential to perform all the behaviours which constitute playing tennis. Only those people who are met with the environmental conditions such as a tennis court, tennis racket, and tennis balls will ever have the opportunity to express that potential. Those people who are rewarded for their tennis playing behaviour will tend to play more tennis, and those who are not rewarded by the experience will tend to play little or no tennis. Out of all the people who express their potential to play tennis only one at any moment becomes the best tennis player in the world. That person will have had hundreds or perhaps thousands of times as much experience at playing tennis as the average tennis player. That person will also have received many times as much reward for their tennis playing behaviour than the average player has. Every tennis player learns the skills involved in a series of small steps. Tennis playing skills are conditioned. The person who has undergone the most successful conditioning becomes the best tennis player in the world. If the world's best tennis player had not had the opportunity to play tennis, or if tennis playing had not been sufficiently rewarded, that person would not play tennis or would not play it well.
