Re: death of the mind.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:30:35 -0400

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x0WHiiLK3OFBFwTs@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <185Rc.49733$Vm1.1247946@news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C
> Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> writes
> >
> >"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ekmMmeGLHNFBFwmP@longley.demon.co.uk...
> >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.
>
> More gibberish. I really don't care whether you see flaws in what you
> *think* is "the behaviourist approach".

In this case, you should be able to point out whether or not you think that
I should be able to determine your motivations and intentions well enough to
answer these things for you. If you assume I can, that's a flaw in your
theory, because it is not possible to do.

> You clearly don't know what
> you're talking about. I'm just letting you know that I get irritated by
> the idiotic things that you say.

Aw, poor baby.

> Why should it matter to me one way or
> another whether you spend your time rummaging around through rubbish?

Then why does it irritate you when I say certain things, if you don't care?
Your own behaviour contradicts you.

> >> 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.
>
> Idiot.

This is, of course, absolutely unlike a rebuttal to my point.

> >> You're an idiot.
> >
> >This looks suspiciously like something completely unlike evidence that I
am
> >either an idiot or ignorant.
>
>
> The evidence is your posts.

Except I asked you for it and you said I was an idiot, which is not
evidence. If you cannot provide and explain why I am so ignorant or
idiotic -- which you have not -- then you are not to be taken seriously.

>
> >
> >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.
> >
> So?

So if you are incapable of providing them, it is useless of you to expect me
to change my opinion based on a couple of pointless insults.

> Don't bother commenting, it's a simple enough solution if what you
> say is anything more then rhetoric.

You rely on rhetoric far more than I do.

> I'm not interested in having an
> impact on you other than to let you know that you're writing ignorant
> nonsense.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about - spend some time trying to
> rectify that.

Why should I? You have yet to provide any reason for me to be motivated to
do so.

Quantcast