Re: A Million Parrots (OH MY GLEN)

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 05/31/04 

Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 23:56:21 +0100

In article <fa69ae35.0405311353.362953e8@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message
>news:<8d8494cf.0405241119.3df017cf@posting.google.com>...
>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<58184467b23640ecf27ffde5475072d5@news.teranews.com>...
>>
>> > GS: It is radical behaviorism that champions the existence of "mental
>> > imagery," you savagely stupid bumpkin.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Now now Glen, be nice. Every now and then, I accidentally read one of
>> your posts ....
>
>That's a mistake.
>
>> I know you guys have "terms" for everything [eg private behavior, or
>> whatever you want to call it],
>
>They don't.
>
>> but the question is ... can YOU
>> personally perform mental imagery? And can you describe it to the rest
>> of us?
>
>It does not matter whether they can. It matters whether they can
>explain.
>
>It's easy to see that they cannot. A behaviorist explanation does not
>suffice for it is restricted to description of I/O and not the
>cognitive function or algorithms (specific mechanisms to implement
>these functions), see my previous comments about "protocol stack
>theory of mind" or "Strata Theory-Theory of Mind" (which is the new
>name).
>
>"Visualizing a blue cube", on the other hand, requires us to
>distinguish clearly what the "hallucinatory" aspects of vision are as
>constrasted to perceptive.
>
>I can, for instance, visualize a solid color, say of blue, in a
>meditation state, and actually see this color as if a blue light was
>projected on my closed eyelids. I suspect many others can. It does not
>matter what you can, it matters what you can explain with a scientific
>theory. Buddhist priests can visualize much better than either of us
>can, alas they don't have a reasonable explanation. Neither do the
>behaviorists.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>--
>Eray Ozkural

This has all been explained to you several times now, and in some detail
too. That you keep repeating the same old nonsense is just testament to
the remarks made elsewhere that you are prone to behave both
irrationally and incorrigibly. It's something we are all prone to
(alas).

However, for an insight into just how this can take over almost
completely (for a while at least), see the following post and the links
the author provides:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=l9quc.23221$nn7.17910@newssvr31.new
s.prodigy.com>

His post to sci.cognitive was (prima facie) courageous. Your post,
however, is just irritating given what's been explained to you before.

So much for "cognition" eh? 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
    ... In message, Eray ... Ozkural exa writes ... >I started ai-philosophy group in an effort to bring together the ... But that's intensional opacity (or "Natural Stupidity") for you. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Eray ... Ozkural exa writes ... >rather than a computation which the computer scientists know better. ... imaginative ideas about "the mind" have such a poor grasp of behavioural ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... In article, Eray ... Ozkural exa writes ... >> You are certainly an embarrassment to your ... >With these kinds of remarks, you only underwrite your mental illness. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... In article, Eray ... Ozkural exa writes ... >> You are certainly an embarrassment to your ... >With these kinds of remarks, you only underwrite your mental illness. ...
    (sci.math)