Reply to comment

I really liked the box theory (inputs/outputs). It made more sense to me than the stimulus/response theory. The box theory explains the diversity of people’s behavior, whereas the stimulus/response theory made us seem as if we’re robots run by our outside environment. I still believe that our environment is a huge determinant of our behavior, but we can’t forget about some exceptions such as outputs produced without inputs. But I’m curious about how this happens -- how can the brain create outputs without the need of an input, and when and why would it do this? Another question I have deals with the boxes themselves. It’s interesting to think that there are smaller boxes within the bigger boxes (like Russian dolls). But what is going on in these really tiny boxes that cause one person to respond to an input differently from another person?

I tried to apply this theory to Descartes and Dickinson’s views. I’m still working on it. Both the stimulus/response theory and the box theory seem to be confusing in Dickinson’s view. If the outside world is a construct of our mind, does this mean that a construct of the brain is controlling how the brain itself will act? It’s as if the brain as created a playground for itself, for which it can play in. I’m still figuring out how to bring Descartes into this. Maybe the “mind” (what constitutes our individuality, consciousness, etc.) is embedded in the “brain” (the physical matter run by neurons and such)? Maybe that’s what the tiniest of the tiny boxes are about?