Re: syllogism

From: JPL Verhey (matterDELminds_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:14 +0200

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xIdHd0KtiCXBFwgC@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <415c1a5b$0$44105$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
> Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:VcZOY5A7l0WBFwtC@longley.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <415b3d29$0$44107$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
>>> Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>>...
>>>>What exactly is your problem with people researching the
>>>>relationship,
>>>>correlations between the structural and physiological mechanisms of
>>>>the
>>>>nervous system and the psychological reality of conscious
>>>>experience?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That to a very great extent, most of those who purport to be doing
>>> so,
>>> aren't. They're just making out that they do whilst peddling the
>>> same
>>> old metaphysical nonsense that humans have been doing for thousands
>>> of
>>> years. They're just using a new medium.
>>
>>Ok. So it is possible and a number of people do this research in a way
>>that is sound according to you, whilst others (I understand in your
>>opinion most) don't.
>>
>>Can you expand some on this and give detailed examples of the right
>>way
>>and the wrong way - both in terms of perhaps of methodology and in the
>>way language and models are used?
>
> I have done so, several times, to no avail. I provided links to
> Kandel's work on synaptic plasticity in Aplysia (*and* not to what he
> goes on to speculate about the hippocampus and human/rat "memory").
> That was done to show what that work depends upon, ie sound behaviour
> analysis. But basically, the honest answer has to be no, and part of
> the reason for that is that the very fact that you ask me to do what
> you do, shows that you have not learned from what I have provided in
> the past. It seems reasonably clear that a) you don't have the
> necessary background to understand the work and b) you won't even do
> the work that's suggested to grasp what's said at the level that is
> required to grasp the other points that are being made. That's the
> problem. For some reason, people seem to think that they can pick up a
> couple of popular books on neuroscience or psychology and that through
> browsing them they'll be up to speed on what's known about
> brain-behaviour relations. It doesn't work that way, and I think only
> ignorant people could think otherwise. But that's what we see here. We
> see Michaels, Zero, Nagega etc and many others arguing with people who
> have spent decades working in the very fields in which they are
> obviously little more than amateurs. What's worse is that they
> nevertheless insist on posting asinine remarks based on the half
> understood things they've read in the popular books they've read or as
> a result of some random net searches they've dashed off 10 mins after
> reading a post. It's just stupid behaviour, and there's no other word
> for it. The fact that lots of people do it is just testament to the
> sad way that education has become democratised.

And you think that repeating this over and over again will help,
convince anyone? You have succesfully conditioned us to be deaf for you
and what you have to say. You don't understand what you are doing.

>
> Other than that, the point to grasp is not to speculate about
> "consciousness" and to give other intensional notions wide berth.
>
> I suggested you read "Fragments" and I suggested you read "Two
> Dogmas". I've seen little evidence of you having done either. The same
> goes for the others I mention above.

Even if I would make a thorough study of your recommended literature
(and of course of a lot more literature that you don't like but that I
would read in order to have diverse sources in those issues) and discuss
it, you would still call me an idiot when you have the chance. You show
no repsect for amateurs here, nor for names that do have a history and
an educational background that "even" surpass yours on many subjects -
as you have proven many times. You just act like a rabid little dog no
matter who is in the room. You can't help yourself, you don't want to be
helped, and in fact noone is able to help you. I solemly declare you
incurable and a source of entertainment only.

Amen

Relevant Pages

  • Re: One for the bottleheads
    ... For some reason they regard this as a prejorative or negative ... that some types of amp produce a 'different sound' that they prefer, ... > I am sure that all elements of the hi-fi chain which I can influence can ... > Others like to choose all bits of kit on that basis. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding
    ... Yes that's the sound we hear when the round is over. ... are frequently learned as a child and then permeate and guide that life all ... Most people who don't get it simply are not trying to get it for one reason ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: DG 1956 Mozart Jubilee Edition
    ... and you are unable to use the CDs to remaster your product. ... >> to me from the stand point of sound quality, ... > It's not that you are wrong, but this same point (that some tapes might have ... > degraded) is often cited as the reason why a certain company or person ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Got no sound. :(
    ... I thought, well hell, I'll just throw my hard-drive in there to replace ... Reason given was 'no NTLDR'. ... This motherboard has built-in sound, but I wanted to use my sound card. ... It's a YAMAHA DS-XG PCI card. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Another Sterling Massachusetts Alum
    ... I personally find your position on some of these issues disturbing. ... returning to war mode at any time - if the political will existed. ... If there was a compelling reason to be in Iraq, ... You have no idea what I can grasp. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
Loading