Reply to comment

I too am struggling with this notion of behavior and the Merriam Webster definition is disconcerting to me. In thinking about it, I keep hitting a wall in which the question at hand seems to be this: can behavior transcend that which we can't immediately observe? My immediate response is…sure, why not? But then that would mean behavior is essentially everything and that’s just too complex and intangible. So in an attempt for a more concrete understanding I was thinking about non-neuronal related inputs/ouputs. Let’s look at an enzyme processing a given substrate; the substrate, in this situation is the input that yields the output—the products of the reaction. This situation hones in on the notion of inputs/outputs on a really basic level and at this microscopic level “input” and “output” are not readily observable. My issue with Merriam Webster’s definition is that I feel that they have taken the easy way out. Ok…so let’s play with this idea of behavior as a bunch of “inputs” and “ouputs;” a complete attempt at defining “behavior” would answer these questions: 1) is “behavior” limited to that which we can readily observe? 2) are we talking about input/output in purely a neuronal (and perhaps hormonal) level? and 3) what is the scale with which we consider inputs and outputs? If the answer to the first question is yes, then I believe Merriam Webster ought to clean up their answer a bit; clearly not all inputs and outputs are observable to us and not all inputs yield an ouput (hmm...on another not, is lack of output in response to an input considered be “behavior?”)