Re: death of the mind.

From: AlphaOmega2004 (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:35:52 GMT

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Crq7lhIf0B8AFwJO@longley.demon.co.uk...
> Ahh, I think I know the answer to that. What Chomsky and Pinker etc have
> to say just doesn't apply to behaviourists. Apparently, really
> "intelligent" folk (such as the above) naturally know better. In fact,
> they advise others not to argue with "behaviourists", as doing so tends
> to draw attention to them and encourages them to say unhelpful things at
> odds with common sense.

That behaviorists have no explanation for binocular rivalry (among hundereds
of other brain/mind phenomena) shows rad. behaviorists are not only at odds
with common sense, but that their "science" to be bereft of explanatary
value. PLease read all the papers at Chalmer's site to gain some knowledge
of these issue before spouting your nonsense again. Thanks!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A step by step discussion
    ... but offer no possible theoretical explanation, ... inability to acknowledge that you have no idea what to do with the stimuli ... It is simply a reification of the behavioral facts performed ... any explanatory structure you have (do behaviorists have ANY explanatory ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The animal, not the environment, controls behavior.
    ... behaviorists have some kind of viewpoint that they ... and you have not understood the explanation. ... paint the wall. ... Explaining it to me isn't really important. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)