Re: death of the mind.

From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 08/07/04 

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 09:52:13 -0400

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ekmMmeGLHNFBFwmP@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Rb3Rc.44109$Jq2.2048676@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
> Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes
> >> No, you don't understand. It isn't a matter of "positing" anything.
> >
> >If you aren't positing that behaviourism is the best explanation of mind,
> >why in the world are you arguing with people who claim that it isn't?
> >
> Again, that's a question you should think about more carefully instead
> of assuming you already know.

Actually, it's a question that you should answer, since it's a question
about YOUR motivations and intentions. I do not assume that I know the
answer because I have no way to determine with 100% what those things are
for you. To claim that I can is just you demonstrating yet again the flaw
in the behaviourist approach to mind and intelligence.

>
> >> What
> >> you're reporting to this newsgroup is no more than the fact that *you*
> >> "fail to see the use of" what you have been told. You're just making a
> >> public statement of your ignorance (something you've been doing from
the
> >> outset).
> >
> >No, actually. What I'm saying is that so far my folk psychologist and
> >philosophy of mind ideas have been successful enough that I see no reason
to
> >abandon them in favour of your radical behaviourism unless you can
show --
> >which you have not -- why your view actually works better.
>
> That's what I said. You don't even understand what *you* post. Given
> that, it's unlikely that you read what *others* say with any more care!

I am the ultimate authority as to my intentions and goals. Again,. all you
do here is demonstrate the flaw in your view.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Nobody is obliged to educate you, but you should expect people to point
> >> out *that* you're ignorant.
> >
> >Not unless they can prove it. Which you have not.
> >
>
> You're an idiot.

This looks suspiciously like something completely unlike evidence that I am
either an idiot or ignorant.

David, all you do is prove that your behaviourist approaches are not
terribly strong. Your attempts at negative conditioning -- by calling me
"ignorant" or "an idiot" -- would only work if I actually felt a need to
take such comments from you seriously. Since you have yet to demonstrate
why I should, they do not have any impact on me. I react far better to
actual reasoning and evidence than insults anyway.