Re: death of the mind.

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:16:20 GMT

On 28 Jul 2004 13:48:42 -0700, feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4107b35f.55915179@netnews.att.net>...
>> 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
>
>
>Adler seems to have carried through the same opinion for the next 70
>years, up till his death about 1990 - as I've mentioned in other
>posts, re his comments about metaphysical materialism being dogmatic
>and in error.
>
>Somewhere in the book cited above, I recall him mentioning the basic
>delusion of thinking that you could make the soft sciences as rigorous
>as the hard sciences. In fact, as we've seen you cannot even do it
>with the "hard" sciences - long about the same time frame early last
>century, we had atomic physics, relativity, quantum physics,
>heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc - all of which turned the
>previous ideas of newtonian physics on its head. Seems shortsighted to
>think one can claim the dogmatic "truth" about something as complex as
>the brain and mind. Premature.

Dogmatic truth I would agree and premature I would certainly agree.
But I do think we can come a lot closer to demonstrable truth in all
these areas both hard and soft. It will undoubtedly disappoint those
who would forever prefer to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stolen machine, who owns software?
    ... > Now if the thief left the wheels and only stole the car, ... >>> if you have OEM software and the computer gets stolen. ... > victimizes the OP again! ... you've agreed to the limits of the OEM license. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Shrink Wrap my EULA ?
    ... eventhough no consumer has any need for ... > Thief. ... Liar. ... I have had only one license check error and that was when XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: ITV1 Tonight - Uninsured driving
    ... Handy for the thief, that is. ... Handy if he shares the same name, driving license number and photograph ... Both of which are quite handy if you're a car thief. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Corporate XP and SP2
    ... Jupiter Jones wrote: ... > Many people are using unauthorized Product Keys on their computers. ... > Whether they know it or not, they are using a stolen license. ... the thief has *not* stolen my licence. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: bioshock bug or otherwise?
    ... NPCs. ... I thought the Thief 3 physics and game engine were superb. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)