Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/24/04

  • Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1" 
    Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:58:21 +0100

    In article <41536536$0$44071$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
    Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
    >
    >"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:YaBtZbKTAwUBFwcd@longley.demon.co.uk...
    >> In article <8d8494cf.0409230829.105885ad@posting.google.com>, dan
    >> michaels <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> writes
    >>>This self-destructive ignorance is a popular disorder which I
    >>>> suspect is just becoming more salient as the net and our educational
    >>>> systems become more democratized.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Awww ..............
    >>>
    >>>Ok, you get one more response this cycle. Take the challenge .....
    >>>
    >>>Go form a forum on behaviorism, and see how many scientists come
    >>>rushing into the fold. I should guess the answer is the 2 twins.
    >>>Boring.
    >>>
    >>>Who will not rush into the fold ??? .... Bateson, Dennett, Humphries,
    >>>Adler, Bertallanfy, Edelman, Ashby, Wiener, Deacon, Sacks, Piaget,
    >>>Zeki, van Essen, Kosslyn, Dawkins, Gould, Crick, Maturana, Varela,
    >>>C.Rogers, S.Greenfield, Searle, Gelernter, Gazza***, Ornstein,
    >>>Pinker, the Premacks, Wm Calvin, Arvid Carlsson, B.Russell. On and on.
    >>>These are the people I have read in the past year. And some of them
    >>>actually graduated from grad school.
    >>>
    >>>Now ask me which group of nutcases I'd rather be with. Your group of
    >>>nutcases or that group of nutcases? DOH!
    >>
    >> I don't think anybody really cares what group you'd rather be in. The
    >> entire way you approach these matters is what's wrong with you.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Take the challenge. Form your own forum. Don't be such a big silly
    >>>coward.
    >>
    >> I don't think anyone really cares what you've (mis)read over the past
    >> year either. It's quite clear that you don't understand what you read
    >> and that what you post doesn't make any sense as a consequence. You
    >> aren't able to make sound, reliable judgements about these matters
    >> because you don't have the appropriate background to critically
    >> evaluate what you read. You just believe what you *like*. This makes
    >> you extremely irrational/deluded.
    >>
    >> Being abusive won't change the truth of that. Sadly, if you carry on
    >> behaving this way, it may turn out that nothing will.
    >
    >But we appreciate your efforts to save our lost souls... Lord David. You
    >truly are a caring personality.
    >
    >
    So people say. But you ought to look around at the company you keep. 

    -- 
David Longley
  • Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1"