Re: death of the mind.

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:07:30 +0100

In article <41091181.69469086@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:53:38 +0100, David Longley
><David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In article <JuYNc.324$U_3.67490@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
>>Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes
>>>
>>>"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6e2f1d09.0407250405.2cbb5ae8@posting.google.com...
>>>> But virtually all of what is talked about by cognitive psychology is
>>>> not observed - only the end product is observed. And what of all the
>>>> so-called "implicit learning" stuff? Would you argue that explicit
>>>> memory is mental or cognitive but implicit memory is not?
>>>>
>>>> Needless to say, the alternative is that nothing is "mental," but we
>>>> do sometimes observe our own behavior, and it is parts of our behavior
>>>> that we see when we introspect.
>>>
>>>I'm really wondering what this has to do with what I actually said.
>>>
>>>First, it sounds like your first paragraph is you vigorously agreeing with
>>>me. After all, I pointed out that we call things like the subconscious
>>>mental because of their seeming relation to the experiences that we have
>>>consciously of what we certainly class as mental things. You are insisting
>>>that implicit memory and learning should be considered mental because it
>>>seems to be related to and have the same function, which is why I said we
>>>wanted to consider them to be mental originally. And I also pointed out
>>>that some people have no problem refusing to consider those things mental
>>>despite that argument. Note that my original argument was that what we
>>>consider mental is in fact entirely that experience that we have of the
>>>mental. Even if you argue that some things "can't be observed", that's
>>>irrelevant, since we only call it mental if it seems to do the same thing as
>>>the experienced notions, or aid in some way those experienced notions.
>>>
>>>And, needless to say, I fail to see the use of your alternative.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>We know!
>>
>>Have you entertained the possibility that such a statement might
>>motivate other folk to undertake a radical/critical self-reappraisal?
>
>Wherein David once more illustrates his primary forensic device of
>never answering questions nor even asking factual questions but only
>of demanding answers to open ended questions as polemical devices.
>
>Regards - Lester
>

That's because you "factually" make odd statements and ask very peculiar
questions. Although a caricature, you are prone to make statements of
the kind "positivism is a salty hose-pipe" or "behaviourism originated
in load itchiness", or to ask questions of the kind "why is the moon a
chocolate tadpole?", "why don't sausages sing arias?".

When you're told you aren't making sense you get abusive! Oh, and to
top it all, you then make friends with other fruitcakes prone to write
similar sorts of ignorant, abusive, superstitious gerrymandered
constructions. Whilst this isn't quite "folie simultanee" I reckon you'd
be wise to take the following advice seriously:

Spend some time trying to write sensible sentences on these matters and
blocking those which don't. To learn to tell the difference, you could
try reading some books which provide model examples of good questions
*and* answers - you might try "About Behaviorism" (1974) by Skinner for
instance.

It really is largely about getting the language right! 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: True Grit and Salsa Verite
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>serious problem benefiting from what others tell you. ... >Of course, I'm deluded, David. ... It *is* largely a matter of learning the language, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >>never answering questions nor even asking factual questions but only ... You don't even get the language right, David. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... David R Tribble wrote: ... What are infinitesimals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>contingencies controlling his behaviour and the consequences. ... the best we can do with some animals is to humanely ... David Longley ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >And here I thought you'd killfiled me, David. ... >reasonableness. ... That's why I'm ignoring most of your posts. ...
    (sci.cognitive)