Re: The Hard Problem for Behaviorists

From: AlphaOmega2004 (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/10/04 

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:07:13 -0700

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jZ5TZdHHqwZBFwy$@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <111em0pmak888439o2o4lg24ort8oacl2v@4ax.com>, JXStern
> <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> writes
> >On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:35:42 +0100, David Longley
> ><David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>if you'd followed up the references I gave you, or if you'd read my
> >>quite succinct explanations here, you may have picked up why philosophy
> >>of mind comes down to empirical behavioural science.
> >
> >Hang about some real philosophers sometime, it's a rare day they give
> >a fig about even simple psychological evidence.
> >
> >That's their error, perhaps, but it's only the compsci guys and a few
> >cognitivist psychologists who give much of a look to both sides, and
> >they tend to short the philosophy almost as much as the philosophers
> >tend to short the evidence.
> >
> >Philosophy of mind doesn't come down to anything, it either makes a
> >contribution on its own, or it doesn't.
> >
> >J.
> >
> >
> I don't think you understand what I said. When I say it comes down to
> empirical behavioural science I'm telling you what it practically comes
> down to. That means it is what we do in those areas, and in my case that
> comes down to what people do as much as any other animals. If you look
> more closely into what I am talking about there, the referent is
> forensic or clinical practice - in all sorts of domains. You simply do
> not know what I am talking about, and I couldn't care two hoots about
> whether some ivory tower academic philosopher or "cognitive" or computer
> scientist agrees or not - they probably just don't appreciate the scope
> of what I'm talking about if they dispute what I am telling you/them.

Right - everyone else is wrong, or simply don't get it if they do not agree
with you - this is merely NPD rasing its ugly head again David. Please get
your meds on track again. You have been behaving badly here lately..

> This comes down to my having access to what's always the most important
> resource scientists ever have - *data*.

And data wrongly (or Longley) interpreted, with philosophical blinders on,
can be dangerous in the minds of naive abusers such as yourself.

>
> --
> David Longley

Relevant Pages