@FBM,
Quote:When you say "conditioning," are you referring to operant, classical or covert conditioning? Or something else? Every phenomenon is conditioned by previous states, so to say something is conditioned is not really saying anything unless you specify a type.
It would be operant when there is a cynical guide creating behaviour which he wants and natural conditioning when that guide is the senses. One of Pavlov's followers rendered a cat neurotic and alcoholic using operant conditioning, in order to prove, I assume, that water drinkers are not neurotic and that reaching for the bottle is a symptom of mental illness.
An' sho shay all of ush. He then rehabilitated the poor thing using natural conditioning so as not to upset any viewers too much. Whether he took that trouble with other experiments which were not recorded I don't know or whether his own conditioning, which led him to avoid upsetting viewers too much, was operant or natural, I have not made my mind up on.
It is a somewhat delicate question and I'm not the sort of bloke for stirring up controversy.
It seems obvious to me that natural conditioning, on its own, is a lot worse than a dead loss. So operant conditioning is, imo, necessary. And an atheist should, as you honourably say, eschew it all. As I do these days. But only because I used to be, at least partially, operantly conditioned.
The only question is what type of operant conditioning fits our present circumstances best. The public are very wary of atheists taking it over.
