| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » The Lunar Paradox
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Lester Zick |
 Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:46:25 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Quote: LZ: And I can't tell why you deny knowledge is a thing or that it is a
cause of behavior. What exactly is the scientific basis for such a
denial?
snip
GS: The justification is not empirical because, though it is a scientific
question, it is not an empirical question. I have written extensively about
this topic here. My view (whose description I unabashedly admit is due to
Machado et al) is that successful science consists of factual, theoretical,
and conceptual issues. As I have said, hundreds of times, there is no
"scientific justification" - in the sense of empirical justification -for
any of what are referred to as "cognitive processes," because these are not
hypotheses or theories, or facts.
If ". . .successful science consists of factual, theoretical, and
conceptual issues" then how can any kind of science deny any
definitive significance to some form of conceptual faculty?
Quote: They are, roughly speaking, assumptions
(and their history may, ultimately, be traced to theological and animistic
philosophies - just like the "mind" itself). Behaviorism holds that this
makes them highly dubious, especially when they can be given any properties
necessary, post hoc. It is not clear in what sense they could be "wrong"
and, thus, how they could be right.
They could be and often are wrong in analytical terms the way
incorrect geometric or mathematical theorems are wrong when their
proofs are invalid. Obviously the complexity of non experimental
analysis in behavioral cases makes such considerations problematic at
best But that doesn't suggest or imply that those considerations can
be denied or are not present as behvaioral determinants in scientific
terms.
Quote: We do not test whether or not "knowledge
exists," or "memories exist." We ask how they are stored, what is their
form? Etc. etc. etc. But since these properties are inferred by observing
the behavior they are said to explain, it appears that they are merely
vacuous explanatory fictions that give nothing more than the illusion of
explanation. There is no independent verification of the existence of these
"entities." And, no, "pictures" constructed from fMRI and so forth cannot be
said to be independent verfication of "knowledge of size" or anything
similar - they are simply indications that certain physiological processes
are taking place at a high rate in certain brain areas. One cannot claim we
are really "looking at knowledge" until you can say how the dimensions
observed here "turn into" the dimensions relevant to observation of
behavior, and one must do so without invoking other terms that have no
verification independent of the behavioral phenomena they are said to
explain.
I agree that these considerations do not show conclusive evidence of
knowledge etc. And I would not disagree that intellectual determinants
of behavior can be safely ignored in animals and occasionally in
humans. What I disagree with is the "show me some isolated material
circumstance" criterion for validating the relevance of any such
consideration to behavior.
It is certainly a relevant criterion for those who claim to know where
knowledge etc. is and what it physically represents. But these kinds
of claims are specific to cognitive science and related disciplines
and not to the idea of behavioral science in general. We may not be
able to state the specific relevance of any given material
circumstance in the brain to behavior but neither can we state that
for environmental contingencies. At best we can only state that x% of
the time certain factors are present either in environmental
contingencies or in the brain that correlate with certain kinds of
behavior.
This is because as a pragmatic consideration of applied science in all
contexts both material and behavioral I would suggest that we can
never know such things without referring to the differences between
and among various environmental and cerebral contingencies to explain
the relevance of given isolated factors. This of course just
represents my reading of the necessary implications of idea of
differential cognition in general.
However given that framework I would also suggest that sciences of
material interactions in general like physics are subject to exactly
the same considerations. The only difference is that material
interactions are indifferent to their material circumstances in the
sense that those differences are either zero or predictable constants
and that this is the only reason those circumstances are predictable
in terms of constants and the formation of equations.
In other words it is never possible to show that any specific material
circumstance alone is the determinant for any behavior because what
matters are the differences between or among external and internal
cerebral environmental contingencies and not any particular factor
considered in isolation.
Regards - Lester |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Danny Purvis |
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fc7cca8.8221362@netnews.att.net>...
Quote: The only difficulty I might see in this connections concerns
atmospheric lensing. There has to be some effect resulting from the
added atmosphere. It may obviously not be enough but the idea that the
image of the moon can remain exactly the same size - "Neither
explanation is correct, however, for photographic images of the moon
reveal that its image remains exactly the same size throughout its
trajectory" - strikes me as mechanically implausible.
Surely an eminent metaphysicist scientist such as yourself could
devise an experiment to resolve this issue. But, I suppose there is a
philosophical issue here also. Since there "has to be some effect
resulting from the added atmosphere", despite the two millennia of
experimental observations that say otherwise, any experimental
observations you might make would need to be disregarded also.
Danny Purvis |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lester Zick |
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 23 Dec 2003 08:19:30 -0800, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Quote: lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fc7cca8.8221362@netnews.att.net>...
The only difficulty I might see in this connections concerns
atmospheric lensing. There has to be some effect resulting from the
added atmosphere. It may obviously not be enough but the idea that the
image of the moon can remain exactly the same size - "Neither
explanation is correct, however, for photographic images of the moon
reveal that its image remains exactly the same size throughout its
trajectory" - strikes me as mechanically implausible.
Surely an eminent metaphysicist scientist such as yourself could
devise an experiment to resolve this issue. But, I suppose there is a
philosophical issue here also. Since there "has to be some effect
resulting from the added atmosphere", despite the two millennia of
experimental observations that say otherwise, any experimental
observations you might make would need to be disregarded also.
Whatever.
In case anyone wants to know, this is the turkey who rather
fractiously drove my reactionary interest in solipsism, eventually
leading to the application of differential mechanics to the envelope
of the mind. Another country heard from. I suppose I should thank him
but he rather tends to suffer from acute logorrhea.
Regards - Lester |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Danny Purvis |
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fe86de4.33015449@netnews.att.net>...
Quote: On 23 Dec 2003 08:19:30 -0800, danny_purvis@hotmail.com (Danny Purvis)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fc7cca8.8221362@netnews.att.net>...
The only difficulty I might see in this connections concerns
atmospheric lensing. There has to be some effect resulting from the
added atmosphere. It may obviously not be enough but the idea that the
image of the moon can remain exactly the same size - "Neither
explanation is correct, however, for photographic images of the moon
reveal that its image remains exactly the same size throughout its
trajectory" - strikes me as mechanically implausible.
Surely an eminent metaphysicist scientist such as yourself could
devise an experiment to resolve this issue. But, I suppose there is a
philosophical issue here also. Since there "has to be some effect
resulting from the added atmosphere", despite the two millennia of
experimental observations that say otherwise, any experimental
observations you might make would need to be disregarded also.
Whatever.
Why do morons always say, "Whatever"? I'm just curious.
Quote:
In case anyone wants to know, this is the turkey who rather
fractiously drove my reactionary interest in solipsism, eventually
leading to the application of differential mechanics to the envelope
of the mind. Another country heard from. I suppose I should thank him
but he rather tends to suffer from acute logorrhea.
Regards - Lester
Thanks for crediting me with spurring that amazing philosophical
advance. I especially appreciate the irony of your attributing to
anyone, to anyone who has every lived, "acute logorrhea". But my
point is - why do you, the great philosopher-scientist, never take
even the simplest point? - that there have been two thousand years of
measurements of the apparent image of the moon. None of these
measurements have ever shown the slightest difference between
observations taken at the horizon and those taken at the zenith. But
you pontificate that there "has to be some effect resulting from the
added atmosphere". It follows, I think, that a simple application of
the differential mechanics proves that your mind is an envelope, an
empty one, with postage due.
Please understand that I am offering you this critique only for your
own good. If you could stop being a jackass, your life would
undoubtedly improve.
Danny Purvis |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:18 pm
|
|