Re: death of the mind.

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/28/04 

Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:24:20 GMT

On 27 Jul 2004 20:24:46 -0700, feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41069c1e.46852009@netnews.att.net>...
>
>
>> >It isn't that they've studied it and don't *agree*, rather, it
>> >invariably seems to me to be the case that they just don't get the
>> >important facts right. Conversely, those who *do* seem to be able to
>> >give an accurate account of what is the case (whether they *agree* or
>> >not) don't seem to say the things about "the mind" etc that the former
>> >group do.
>>
>> If behaviorists deny the mind and mental effects, what other accurate
>> accounts of what is the case are relevant? You may not appreciate
>> having the significance of behaviorist science interpreted without
>> your approval. But apart from denying the mind, you have nothing to
>> contribute to the subject of imaginative ideas regarding the mind. The
>> science part of what behaviorists contribute to behavioral science
>> doesn't show anything except that you can and do train animal behavior
>> effectively whether or not there are minds and mental effects.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>
>
>Interestingly, Adler keeps weighing in on this discussion. He taught
>psych back in the 1920s, so he was a little familiar with the current
>events of the time .... [pg 49 of a book I lost the title of] ...
>
>"... I can still wholeheartedly subscribe to the opening section,
>which expressed my adverse judgements about experiemntal psychology
>and especially about JB Watson's brand of behaviorism, a doctrine
>which has become a little more sophisticated, but not much sounder, in
>the hands of BF Skinner. Watson, it should be said to his credit, did
>not pretend to be a philosopher as well as a scientist, and certainly
>did not issue moral and political edicts on the basis of his
>laboratory findings ..."

Yes. Personally I've found that a license to steal does not make
one a thief but is still a license to steal in the hands of a thief.
Of course one must be circumspect in passing moral judgment on
scientists. But calling behaviorists mindless is a scientific not a
moral judgment. It would only be a moral judgment on those who
consider that they have minds to begin with.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >> say is that there are no mind and mental effects. ... >started this subject line) i did so as a dramatization of the politics, ... whatsoever in what behaviorists imagine they explain about behavior. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... If by behavioral science you're referring to the work of behaviorists, ... whose only idea regarding the mind is to deny the mind and mental ... If behaviorists deny the mind and mental effects, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >> mind out of political or scientific conviction is truly irrlevant to ... >We don't care about poor philosophy that says "this cannot be ... >> whatsoever in what behaviorists imagine they explain about behavior ... cognitive scientists? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >have I said regarding behaviorists' denial of mind and mental effects ... >Regards - Lester ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >>The mind is a vague concept that is not specific enough to talk about ... We don't care about poor philosophy that says "this cannot be ... > whatsoever in what behaviorists imagine they explain about behavior ... cognitive scientists? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Loading