Changing the response unit from a single peck to a fixed number of pecks in fixed-interval schedules

Each of three pigeons was studied first under a standard fixed-interval schedule. With the fixed interval held constant, the schedule was changed to a second-order schedule in which the response unit was the behavior on a small fixed-ratio schedule (first a fixed-ratio 10 and then a fixed-ratio 20 schedule). That is, every completion of the fixed-ratio schedule produced a 0.7-sec darkening of the key and reset the response count to zero for the next ratio. The first fixed-ratio completed after the fixed-interval schedule elapsed produced the 0.7-sec blackout followed immediately by food. These manipulations were carried out under two different fixed-interval durations for each bird ranging from 3 min to 12 min. The standard fixed-interval schedules produced the typical pause after reinforcement followed by responding at a moderate rate until the next reinforcement. The second-order schedules also engendered a pause after reinforcement, but responding occurred in bursts separated by brief pauses after each blackout. For a particular fixed-interval duration, post-reinforcement pauses increased slightly as the number of pecks in the response unit increased despite large differences in the rate and pattern of key pecking. Post-reinforcement pause increased with the fixed-interval duration under all response units. These data confirm that the allocation of time between pausing and responding is relatively independent of the rate and topography of responding after the pause.     

Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons' responses in the presence of two concurrently available (initial-link) stimuli produced one of two different (terminal-link) stimuli according to identical but independent variable-interval schedules. Responding in the mutually exclusive terminal links was reinforced with food according to fixed-ratio schedules for six pigeons and according to fixed-interval schedules for two pigeons. None of the pigeons matched the proportion of (choice) responses in the initial links to the proportion of the rates of reinforcement obtained during the terminal links. Instead, as the values of each of the terminal-link schedules were increased by a constant amount, the choice proportions for the stimulus associated with the smaller of the two values increased, even though the relative rates of reinforcement during the terminal links decreased. These results are incompatible with those from previous studies with aperiodic (variable-interval or variable-ratio) schedules. The present results do suggest, however, that in transforming aperiodic schedules into their periodic equivalents, it may be necessary to consider the size of the smallest interreinforcement interval comprising the terminal-link schedules.     

艺术审美尺度的超验问题质疑 H—G 卡达穆尔《真实性和方法·哲学诠释学纲要》——第一部分:对于艺术经验的真实性问题的阐述

卡达穆尔的《真实性和方法》一书是用以论证一种“哲学诠释学”的,它的第一部分在方法论上是其他一切部分的基础,涉及审美尺度的超验问题,并在这个基础上设想出一种艺术作品的本体论。如果我们要对这部广博的、内容丰富的著作加以批判,我们首先就必须讨论它的第一部分。     

评恰托帕驮耶《顺世学派。古代印度唯物主义研究》

近来在印度学家中间,从马克思主义立场来深入研究印度哲学的历史开始获得愈来愈大的威望。虽然在这一方面马克思主义者刚刚走上开始的阶段,他们却巳写出了一系列印度哲学史的重要著作,其中包括Д.П.恰托帕驮耶的这本著作。还在1956年,该书首次以印地文出版;但是对本书的兴趣如此之大,以致于1959年出版了它的英译本,1961年出版了从英译本转译的俄译本。恰托帕驮耶的这本书无疑是从马克思主义立场研究印度哲学某些根本问题的较有份量的著作之一。作者用了大量的实际材料,其中大部分以往从未进行过科学的整理。该书不仅探讨了古代     

关于作为自在目的的人的概念

“那末,我说,人以及一般说来每个有理性者都是作为目的存在着,而绝不能仅仅被当作手段。”这是康德的一个足以自豪的诊断。如果康德没有从这个情绪上有利的地位倒退到用一种非常令人不满的推论去代替证明,那末我们由于对这个论断的崇高意义怀有某种模糊的感情,可能会倾向于对它表示同情。康德写道:“人以及一切有理性者是自在目的这个原理,不是靠我的观察或者经验     

现代英语哲学介绍

逻辑实证主义《逻辑实证主义》一书收集了M.石里克、R.卡尔纳普、O.纽赖特、F.魏斯曼、H.汉恩、F.D.朗塞、C.G.汉贝尔、B.罗素、A.J.艾耶尔、C.L.司蒂文逊和G.莱尔等的文章。这些文章最早是在1924年(如罗素的文章)发表的,晚止于1946年(如莱尔的文章)。在今天都不是容易看到的了。它们之合成为一个单行本,正像艾耶尔宣称的,特别可以证明逻辑实证主义并没有构成一个学派,并且也说明了那些散居在各地而又往往互相对立的思想家们的某些立场的类似倾向。     

关于作为认识形式的经验

在马克思主义认识论中,感性的经验或感性经验这一概念是作为认识的第一阶段的标志使用的。但是,以感觉、知觉、表象为形态所引出的对物质现实性的具体直观的映象的感性经验,还没有表达出人类经验的全部和实质。如果谈到共产党和工人党在为了民主和社会主义反对剥削和压迫、反对帝国主义和战争的革命斗争过程中所取得的经验时,这就非常清楚了。显然这里所指的不单是感性经验形态的经验,而是从革命实践中所取得的、具有判断性质的概括形式的认识。如果人们进一步观察在社会主义社会中具有多种多样形式并且是社会主义生产关系的一种表现的经验交流时,那就可证明,感性     

自由与权威

在中世纪对权威的反抗以后,19世纪的欧洲,每个人所获得的自由已达到了全部历史进程中前所未有的程度。可是,结果却似乎是,许多人并不知道如何去对待他们所赢得的自由。这仍然是正当的自由吗?在欧洲的许多地区,人们显然是失去了对代价巨大的珍贵的自由之真正的了解;并且,也忘记了他们的先辈为了获得自由所付出的巨大代价。自由堕落成任意行动。因此,其结果,反抗权威的斗争问题就被承认真正的有效的权威问题所代替了。可是,恢复失去了的权威就像装置舞台布景一样的不自然。没有一个人相信它。因而发生了巨大的骚乱。在某些欧洲国家中,一些个人和政党大出风头,他们以建立集权主义的权力来代替了流行的无政府主义。他们破坏了这种布景,把暴力统治作为他