Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: patty: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: The Identity Theory of Mind"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:25:04 GMT
David Longley wrote:
> In article <41532b7c.43462373@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
> <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:22:52 +0100, David Longley
>> <David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Leaving aside the usual silly, phobic abuse, you (Verhey, Zero etc) need
>>> to grasp that all education is "problematic", so naturally the science
>>> of behaviour is "problematic" too.
>>
>>
>> David, I'm somewhat confused here.
>
>
> If only you'd meditate on that little insight.
>
>> How do you segue from the
>> proposition that all education is problematic (quotes deleted because
>> the word is perfectly clear) to the non sequitur that the science of
>> behavior is also problematic too?
>
>
> It really is a waste of time given your history. You distort anything
> you are told in the vain belief that you're being imaginative and
> creative. This seems to be a common misconception about the nature of
> creativity here. The fact is that you have to put a lot of time and
> effort in first - years, decades. Patty, for one seems to have the same
> sort of misconceptions. These are popular but they're misguided. This is
> why neither of you come up with anything new, and why you keep getting
> so much wrong.
>
You misrepresent what i am saying. We (at least i) cannot come to grips
with what Zick, in particular, is saying because he refuses to connect
with the body of literature on the subject with which we (at least i)
are (am) familiar. In that narrow sense i think we agree on what Zick's
problem is. But then on the other hand what Zick is trying to say (at
least i think he is trying to say) is a rejection of that very body of
literature. I think he is grasping for a spiritual world, but not from
a religious point of view, rather from what he calls a "mechanical"
point of view. Perhaps he should try to build Neurath's boat. I wish
you luck, Lester.
patty
- Next message: patty: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: The Identity Theory of Mind"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]