Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:11:15 +0100
In article <ci4kgs02pli@drn.newsguy.com>, Daryl McCullough
<daryl@atc-nycorp.com> writes
>David Longley says...
>>Daryl McCullough <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> writes
>
>>>Then why not answer Allan's question? He wants to know what the behaviorist
>>>concept of intelligence is.
>
>>Perhaps because what we refer to as "intelligence" has already been
>>clearly explained and referenced.
>
>In that case, why don't you answer Allan's question?
>
>--
>Daryl McCullough
>Ithaca, NY
>
Sigh.... I *have*.
-- David Longley
- Next message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- In reply to: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Next in thread: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]