Search Forum:

It appears in the discussion of stages that there might be a bit of “talking across paradigms.?The behaviorist perspective obviously sees stages quite differently than does that of developmental epistemology. This difference is to be expected since behaviorism is not an assimilation theory, and it does not differentiate activity into its assimilatory and accommodation aspects. MLC:?That is simply not true.?In behavioral psychology, assimilation is transfer of training.?Accommodation is a subset of behavioral cusps that produce stage change. Without analysis of the assimilatory systems, stages based on the logical-mathematical forms of the developing systems presents less validity than having many stages of difficulty levels. Behaviorism appears to concern itself with successions of behaviors demonstrated to be increasingly difficult by their accumulations and coordination of earlier behaviors which is perfectly OK in the study of procedures but these stages of the steps of increasing difficulty conflict with the idea that activity re-organizes and reconstructs its logical-mathematical forms such that both the assimilations and accommodations are transformed. Behaviorism conflicts with the idea that activity re-organizes and reconstructs its logical-mathematical forms such that both the assimilation and accommodations are transformed. MLC:?How can that be??Read Commons & Pekker, 2008.?The tree conditions as stated hundreds of times here are that the higher order actions is defined in terms of the lower order ones, organizes them and in an non arbitrarily way.?In a paper last year, I should how higher stage could not be reduced to lower stage paper.?So how can the higher stage behavior not be transformative??The world does not look the same after stage change.?Remember, the MHC is a mathematical system.?It is just not speculative as to the mind.