Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!littlei!intelisc!omepd!max From: max@omepd (Max G. Webb) Newsgroups: sci.psychology Subject: Re: language, thought, and culture Message-ID: <2920@omepd> Date: 14 Mar 88 23:41:03 GMT References: <44@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> <2894@pbhyf.UUCP> <888@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <326@thirdi.UUCP> <899@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <5776@dhw68k.cts.com> <5378@swan.ulowell.edu> Reply-To: max@omepd.UUCP (Max G. Webb) Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro Lines: 32 Keywords: thought modalities In article <5378@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@eagle.UUCP (Sean Brunnock) writes: > OK I'll bite. I define intelligence as the ability to make new >Stimulus -> Response associations... There are problems with defining 'intelligence' in those terms. As Chomsky demonstrated a long time ago, a strictly behaviorist definition of this kind is incapable of explaining the acquisition of competency in a natural language. After all, a natural language contains an _infinite set_ of stimuli. Adding S-R pairs, one at a time, will never produce the language capability humans (and even chimpanzees) can show. If you extend your definition to allow the addition of infinite sets of S-R links, without specifying how this (remarkable) feat occurs, then you haven't said much. All you will have said is that intelligence allows a progressive modification of reactions to stimuli. >The frontal lobe is considered to be the seat of man's intelligence. >If you remove the frontal lobe ( a lobotomy ) from a person, then that >person becomes "stupid". ... > He will only be capable of Pavlovian learning >and no more intelligent than a flatworm. If that were the observed effect of a lobotomy, I doubt whether the operation would have ever been done more than once. In actual fact, a lobotomy does not reduce a person to a vegetable state. The change is quite a bit more subtle than that. The psychopath may still hear her/his voices, but not be moved to a frenzy by them. > Sean Brunnock > University of Lowell > sbrunnoc@eagle.cs.ulowell.edu