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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:51:39 +0100

In article <QLY4d.148993$3l3.78373@attbi_s03>, patty
<pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>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.

No, *you* do not know what you are saying. You lie to yourself and now
to others too.

>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.

No - you can not understand what Zick says because Zick does not say
anything. Instead, he writes pathological metaphysics which is
incoherent. You will not make any more sense of this by saying that it
doesn't have any external referents, because that's what metaphysical
nonsense basically is. You just dupe yourself with a synonym!

This is basically all that many others who are posting here are doing
too. You have not grasped what the two dogmas of classic empiricism were
and what the consequence of repudiating them is. Until you do, you too
will be prone to the same metaphysical muddles and obfuscation that Zick
revels in. The fact that you keep trying to defined this behaviour
elsewhere speaks volumes about your own failures to learn despite
considerable pointers/references having been provided. Instead you turn
these exchanges into an opportunity to do little more than mentally
masturbate like Zick etc.

Your folk psychological musings are basically little more tan
unproductive, if not neurotic, superstitious rituals. If you still need
references, look up Skinner's early experiments!

> 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.
he's an obnoxious neurotic.

As I've said before, you've recently shown that you are disposed to
behave in much the same way as he - albeit less floridly. So are
Michaels, Ozkural and many others here. Glen and I have both made
considerable efforts to show you (and the others) The nature of the
fly-bottle, and how to get out of it. All you do is argue, and tell us
how much you like it in there! This is the classic behaviour of
neurotics.

When I have spent time trying to show you what's wrong with what people
here are doing, guess what they do - they make reference to books
written by other flies stuck in the same damned fly bottle!! 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
    ... David Longley wrote: ... You misrepresent what i am saying. ... with the body of literature on the subject with which we ... But then on the other hand what Zick is trying to say (at ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
    ... No, David, *you* do not know what you are saying. ... >No - you can not understand what Zick says because Zick does not say ... he writes pathological metaphysics which is ... >doesn't have any external referents, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... You mean there are statements which have no truth value? ... Can't tell what you imagine that means. ... Zick has had no previous such blanks in telling people what they imagine ... What I'm not saying is that definitions in modern mathspeak are true. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... You mean there are statements which have no truth value? ... Can't tell what you imagine that means. ... Zick has had no previous such blanks in telling people what they imagine ... What I'm not saying is that definitions in modern mathspeak are true. ...
    (sci.math)