"Glen M. Sizemore"  wrote in message
news:...
> Well....that doesn't seem too troublesome. Basically, an operant is a unit
> of behavior that is defined by its consequence(s). So, in the laboratory, a
> lever-press is defined by the closure of the microswitch mounted on it (the
> occurrence of the response can be made very probable by making some other
> consequence - like food delivery - contingent upon the closure of the
> microswitch). Catania extended this definition by describing the nominal and
> functional operant. When we reinforce some (or all) closures of the
> microswitch (the nominal operant), we find that switch closures increase in
> frequency, but we find that lever depressions that do not result in switch
> closures (the functional operant) do also. In any event, operant behavior is
> "directed toward the future," even though its causes lay in
the past (as
> causes must).

See my response in a new thread entitled: A scientifically 
valid (objective) definition of purpose 

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/2/02 5:56:32 PM