I'm going to say no, not if you go with the classical behaviourist approachhttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/851355926414143488 …
-
-
Replying to @Abebab
Yeah, it's tricky but no seems more appropriate although I got the impression the other tweep thought yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I would say it's the very definition of not behaving at all
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SciAroundYou @o_guest
Indeed! The things that behaviourists are heavily criticized for, for failing to explain/consider
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It is observable and quantifiable though...so maybe behaviourists would take it?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SciAroundYou @o_guest
You mean *it isn't observable and quantifiable*?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I was thinking of default mode network in an MRI
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It isn't. Just like eg semantic memory. We can localise on fMRI but it's not a behaviour. The task that probes sem memory is the behaviour.
-
-
Clearly this joke comment fell flat. I'm out
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
