"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9937a817f691800da2d405f5abc6ca96@news.teranews.com...
Zero: So the blue cube I see in my mind's eye is unobserved by me?


GS: No, the "justice module" is unobserved, pinhead.

Fucktard - why don't you learn something.

Pick up the Sept. 2003 Edition of Scientific American.

Go to page 66 and read Antonio Damasio's (you do know who that is right?),
account of how "memories are temporally coded as they are laid down in
brain".

Note how he uses terms that are intensionally-based as well as
extensionally. And notice the so-called-by-you folk-psychological terms
used throughout and how they are related to, refer to and point to the
physiological processes/eventings that happen in brain.

That article is what real neuroscientists do every day, how the work is
talked about between us, and how it is reported. Now tell us how
misguided
and nonsensical his work is because he is using the terms: memory,
representation, mind, and so forth.



"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dec117f5048215d2d832a617ebcc345b@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f399767f8f4db961251a804893d2a5c@news.teranews.com...
As I have said, you endorse "explanations" of behavioral phenomena
that
are
composed of unobservable entities

So the blue cube I see in my mind's eye is unobserved by me?

You are the second class moron we knew you to be.

that are inferred from the behavior they
are said to explain. If you think that it is reasonable to describe
some
sort of behavior and say "It occurs because there is a module for
it,"

Edelman's TNGS has a lot of evidence for it, unlike your speculations
and
attempts to categorize everything under the unbrella of a behaviorist
manifesto.

You , like morons before you, take individual sentences that discuss
one
aspect of a scenario as *the only* thing that is involved in the
scenario,
and then criticise that aspect's description/explnantion as being all
there
is being said about the scenario forevermore.

Ludicrous and shows the lack of breadth you and Longley are so fond of
presenting here.



then
you are a bigger idiot than you appear otherwise.

"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72f881d1b1ba51fdbc976e1578395f09@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64c8f953d9580d48016c66b6fb4a570d@news.teranews.com...
JL: Pinker guesses that there might be an instinctive "justice"
module
in
the brain that would provide senses of rights, obligations and
deserts.

GS: What a great explanation!

Better than anything you have ever said on the matter, or any
matter
for
that matter.


"Joe Legris" <jalegris@xympatico.ca> wrote in message

snip

Zero: Note how he uses terms that are intensionally-based as well as
extensionally. And notice the so-called-by-you folk-psychological terms
used throughout and how they are related to, refer to and point to the
physiological processes/eventings that happen in brain.

snip

GS: No. The terms refer to behavior in the sense that they are inferred
from
it, and from it alone.

This has been done for millennia. Then,
neurophysiological events are simply said to be those things.

You can say that that is alright, or that that is how it should be etc.,
but
let's see it for what it is.

"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca67d6e2ea1e0b6f72d4c2992937b6f1@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9937a817f691800da2d405f5abc6ca96@news.teranews.com...
Zero: So the blue cube I see in my mind's eye is unobserved by me?


GS: No, the "justice module" is unobserved, pinhead.

Fucktard - why don't you learn something.

Pick up the Sept. 2003 Edition of Scientific American.

Go to page 66 and read Antonio Damasio's (you do know who that is
right?),
account of how "memories are temporally coded as they are laid down in
brain".

Note how he uses terms that are intensionally-based as well as
extensionally. And notice the so-called-by-you folk-psychological terms
used throughout and how they are related to, refer to and point to the
physiological processes/eventings that happen in brain.

That article is what real neuroscientists do every day, how the work is
talked about between us, and how it is reported. Now tell us how
misguided
and nonsensical his work is because he is using the terms: memory,
representation, mind, and so forth.



"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dec117f5048215d2d832a617ebcc345b@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f399767f8f4db961251a804893d2a5c@news.teranews.com...
As I have said, you endorse "explanations" of behavioral phenomena
that
are
composed of unobservable entities

So the blue cube I see in my mind's eye is unobserved by me?

You are the second class moron we knew you to be.

that are inferred from the behavior they
are said to explain. If you think that it is reasonable to
describe
some
sort of behavior and say "It occurs because there is a module for
it,"

Edelman's TNGS has a lot of evidence for it, unlike your
speculations
and
attempts to categorize everything under the unbrella of a
behaviorist
manifesto.

You , like morons before you, take individual sentences that discuss
one
aspect of a scenario as *the only* thing that is involved in the
scenario,
and then criticise that aspect's description/explnantion as being
all
there
is being said about the scenario forevermore.

Ludicrous and shows the lack of breadth you and Longley are so fond
of
presenting here.



then
you are a bigger idiot than you appear otherwise.

"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72f881d1b1ba51fdbc976e1578395f09@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64c8f953d9580d48016c66b6fb4a570d@news.teranews.com...
JL: Pinker guesses that there might be an instinctive
"justice"
module
in
the brain that would provide senses of rights, obligations and
deserts.

GS: What a great explanation!

Better than anything you have ever said on the matter, or any
matter
for
that matter.


"Joe Legris" <jalegris@xympatico.ca> wrote in message

No - there is no behavior you can see when subject is seeing a blue cube in
mind's eye and reported later.

What behavior is it that *is* a memory or a representation of information?

Behaviorism is incomplete and is not the only approach.

That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behaviour.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:12:49 GMT, OmegaZero2003 wrote:


No - there is no behavior you can see when subject is seeing a blue cube in
mind's eye and reported later.

What behavior is it that *is* a memory or a representation of information?

Behaviorism is incomplete and is not the only approach.

We have only two kinds of evidence that the subject is seeing a blue cube in
the mind's eye:

a) his report

b) some similarities in observed brain activity when the subject is seeing a
blue cube, and when he reports that he is seeing a blue cube in the mind's
eye.

Note that both of these bits of evidence are _behaviour_, and that's all they
are. And b) is really a variation on a), since both include the subject's
report.

In any case, neither of these bits of evidence gets us very far, IMO. Now, if
we could translate brain activity into some other medium or mode (as we do
when we translate the interference patterns of X-rays passing through a brain
into a 3D image of the brain), then we would have a little more conclusive
evidence. Sofar, that's science fiction, however.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:16 +0000, David Longley wrote:

That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behaviour.

Good point.

What about "talking to oneself"? My report on this behaviour as observed by
myself is that I often use it to solve problems of presentation,
conceptualisation, etc. It's similar to how I draft a written piece. In fact,
I "wrote" lot of my undergrad essays on the long walks home from the library
this way. (It was damn tedious actually putting it all down on paper
afterwards - the fun part was working it all out.) There is clearly an
internal feedback loop, part of which is "presented to consciousness"
(whatever that means), and which shapes behaviour, in my example the writing
of the essay.

IMO one of the knotty problems is "internal loops of behaviour," which supply
both the stimulus and the reward. I know I do this, and I know other people
do, too, if their reports are to be trusted. A lot of human behaviour mod IMO
results from this. In fact, much successful psychotherapy seems to depend on
it.

Problem is, we can observe only the public effects (or parts) of these loops,
so it's logically difficult if not impossible to construct any coherent
account of how they work. My logic prof took great pains to instill the rule
that "One cannot reason from a consequent to an antecedent in simple
implication." Pretty well all "positing of entities" is such reasoning,
AFAICT.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:16 +0000, David Longley wrote:


That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behaviour.


Good point.

What about "talking to oneself"? My report on this behaviour as observed by
myself is that I often use it to solve problems of presentation,
conceptualisation, etc. It's similar to how I draft a written piece. In fact,
I "wrote" lot of my undergrad essays on the long walks home from the library
this way. (It was damn tedious actually putting it all down on paper
afterwards - the fun part was working it all out.) There is clearly an
internal feedback loop, part of which is "presented to consciousness"
(whatever that means), and which shapes behaviour, in my example the writing
of the essay.

IMO one of the knotty problems is "internal loops of behaviour," which supply
both the stimulus and the reward. I know I do this, and I know other people
do, too, if their reports are to be trusted. A lot of human behaviour mod IMO
results from this. In fact, much successful psychotherapy seems to depend on
it.

Problem is, we can observe only the public effects (or parts) of these loops,
so it's logically difficult if not impossible to construct any coherent
account of how they work. My logic prof took great pains to instill the rule
that "One cannot reason from a consequent to an antecedent in simple
implication." Pretty well all "positing of entities" is such reasoning,
AFAICT.

In article <jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hr3it54.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca>,
Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> writes
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:12:49 GMT, OmegaZero2003 wrote:


No - there is no behavior you can see when subject is seeing a blue cube
in
mind's eye and reported later.

What behavior is it that *is* a memory or a representation of
information?

Behaviorism is incomplete and is not the only approach.

We have only two kinds of evidence that the subject is seeing a blue cube
in
the mind's eye:

a) his report

b) some similarities in observed brain activity when the subject is
seeing a
blue cube, and when he reports that he is seeing a blue cube in the
mind's
eye.

Note that both of these bits of evidence are _behaviour_, and that's all
they
are. And b) is really a variation on a), since both include the subject's
report.

In any case, neither of these bits of evidence gets us very far, IMO.
Now, if
we could translate brain activity into some other medium or mode (as we
do
when we translate the interference patterns of X-rays passing through a
brain
into a 3D image of the brain), then we would have a little more
conclusive
evidence. Sofar, that's science fiction, however.



That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

In article <jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hr4l9t2.pminews@news1.sympatico.ca>,
Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.can> writes
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:27:16 +0000, David Longley wrote:

That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behaviour.

Good point.

What about "talking to oneself"? My report on this behaviour as observed
by
myself is that I often use it to solve problems of presentation,
conceptualisation, etc. It's similar to how I draft a written piece. In
fact,
I "wrote" lot of my undergrad essays on the long walks home from the
library
this way. (It was damn tedious actually putting it all down on paper
afterwards - the fun part was working it all out.) There is clearly an
internal feedback loop, part of which is "presented to consciousness"
(whatever that means), and which shapes behaviour, in my example the
writing
of the essay.

I've talked about this in terms of the public-private behaviour
distinction in other threads. It's difficult as we all know - and for
reasons I've gone into elsewhere (as has Glen).

We can "talk" aloud to ourselves (and hear it), and we can do so without
vocalizing which certainly helps. If we can't, or don't vocalise we can
sign, write/read/feel etc - but all of this requires us to observe
*fragments* of our own behaviour and learn or act upon relations between
them.

We have to learn to act "on" those behaviours (this way of talking isn't
altogether satisfactory, but it will have to suffice for now). The point
is that they are *operants* and these are under environmental control.
Some are weaker than others, ie some "classes" of behaviours are under
different contingencies or schedules or reinforcement (what we call the
affective behaviour of "reward" is but one).

I've gone to some lengths to say that I think our ordinary folk
psychological vernacular is not really up to talking about any of this
very clearly, and neither is much of that that is used in neuroscience.
That's why there's a science of the analysis of behavior of course.


IMO one of the knotty problems is "internal loops of behaviour," which
supply
both the stimulus and the reward. I know I do this, and I know other
people
do, too, if their reports are to be trusted. A lot of human behaviour mod
IMO
results from this. In fact, much successful psychotherapy seems to depend
on
it.

Except that I don't like the notion of "internal" all that much (at
least not when we are getting down to business). It's that sort of talk
that leads people to start talking about "internal mechanisms" etc.
rather than just acknowledge that they don't really know what they are
talking about or how to talk about such matters. (I appreciate you put
them in scare quotes, I'm speaking generally - there are of course all
sorts of "feedback loops" in behaviour and in physiology.)

Our behaviour changes and some of how that happens is opaque to us (some
of our language reflects this). All sorts of things that we do and how
we do them are opaque and when it comes to our private behaviour our
intensional language reflects that in my view. How our brains work, like
the rest of our physiology is still part of our behaviour. Our brains
don't have and don't comprise "internal mechanisms", nor do they store
information. We are far better of saying that our behaviours change and
our brains change in my view and working from there..

How most of us talk about these matters amounts to a modus vivendi - and
some folk study that modus vivendi. Others work on trying to improve it,
and point out the consequences of the modus vivendi etc.



Problem is, we can observe only the public effects (or parts) of these
loops,
so it's logically difficult if not impossible to construct any coherent
account of how they work. My logic prof took great pains to instill the
rule
that "One cannot reason from a consequent to an antecedent in simple
implication." Pretty well all "positing of entities" is such reasoning,
AFAICT.



yes.
--
David Longley

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories etc., and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have written.

In article <57d8b42474145449cc15b3a36470b037@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Really? Where?

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories etc.,
and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have written.

I have repeatedly advised you to look into the logic of intensional
contexts. It's because you don't read (and act upon what you read)
carefully that you write the falsehoods that you do. You *persistently*
confuse/conflate what *you* "think" with what is the actually the case,
and for many of the reasons I have outlined to you and others before.

This is all demonstrable, ie public - so others can see it for
themselves if they wish.

--
David Longley

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WEpKQtBejE$$Ewf8@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <57d8b42474145449cc15b3a36470b037@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it, *talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Really? Where?

I showed counter-examples. Neuroscientists using the words: "memory", "mind"
and "representation" in their work that got Nobel prizes; clearly not
nonsense as your hypothesis claimed.

Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories etc.,
and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have written.

No - they are your views. I showed examples of your views in another
thread - with your name and time stamped. You are a liar.

I have repeatedly advised you to look into the logic of intensional
contexts. It's because you don't read (and act upon what you read)
carefully that you write the falsehoods that you do. You *persistently*
confuse/conflate what *you* "think" with what is the actually the case,
and for many of the reasons I have outlined to you and others before.

This is all demonstrable, ie public - so others can see it for
themselves if they wish.

--
David Longley

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50ZBcpFdNF$$EwIg@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <b62729a66f3201c37798a4451a9f810e@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WEpKQtBejE$$Ewf8@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <57d8b42474145449cc15b3a36470b037@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it,
*talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our
behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Really? Where?

I showed counter-examples. Neuroscientists using the words: "memory",
"mind"
and "representation" in their work that got Nobel prizes; clearly not
nonsense as your hypothesis claimed.

There are matters of fact which you really do need to pay some attention
to.

Fact: You admitted you are not in agreement with the vast vast majority of
neuroscientists.

Fact: You do not know about the many levels of description that describes
the hierarchy of scientific domains.

Fact: Your hypothesis that neuroscience is nonsense because of the use of
words like memory and representation has been proven incorrect.

Fact: You have not read the papers referenced at Chalmer's site; they form a
core of basic understanding of the CAP-related issues. There fore you cannot
know much about such issues.

Fact: You have not read Gazzaniga's works - again, forming a core of
neuroscience information.

Therefore, anything you suggest needs to be taken lightly, as it just may as
well lead to a discourse on the use of blue turtles in Chinese soup as much
as leads to something I have not already heard about or thought of.

It is *you* that needs a broader and deeper education in these areas.

Attend to it at once.

Did you read the Cook interview I referred you to? Did you bother to
read pages 9 and 10?

http://www.apa.org/divisions/div28/archive/History/Centennial_Project/Coo
k_interview.pdf

Or are you just content to make silly abusive noises to see what the
effect is? This seems to be all you really are up to - manic posts
shouting abuse. What you are doing makes no sense beyond that for
reasons I have now explained ad nauseam.





Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories
etc.,
and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have written.

No - they are your views. I showed examples of your views in another
thread - with your name and time stamped. You are a liar.

I have repeatedly advised you to look into the logic of intensional
contexts. It's because you don't read (and act upon what you read)
carefully that you write the falsehoods that you do. You *persistently*
confuse/conflate what *you* "think" with what is the actually the case,
and for many of the reasons I have outlined to you and others before.

This is all demonstrable, ie public - so others can see it for
themselves if they wish.

--
David Longley



--
David Longley

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50ZBcpFdNF$$EwIg@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <b62729a66f3201c37798a4451a9f810e@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WEpKQtBejE$$Ewf8@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <57d8b42474145449cc15b3a36470b037@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it,
*talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our
behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Really? Where?

I showed counter-examples. Neuroscientists using the words: "memory",
"mind"
and "representation" in their work that got Nobel prizes; clearly not
nonsense as your hypothesis claimed.

There are matters of fact which you really do need to pay some attention
to.

Fact: You admitted you are not in agreement with the vast vast majority of
neuroscientists.

Fact: You do not know about the many levels of description that describes
the hierarchy of scientific domains.

Fact: Your hypothesis that neuroscience is nonsense because of the use of
words like memory and representation has been proven incorrect.

Fact: You have not read the papers referenced at Chalmer's site; they form a
core of basic understanding of the CAP-related issues. There fore you cannot
know much about such issues.

Fact: You have not read Gazzaniga's works - again, forming a core of
neuroscience information.

Therefore, anything you suggest needs to be taken lightly, as it just may as
well lead to a discourse on the use of blue turtles in Chinese soup as much
as leads to something I have not already heard about or thought of.

It is *you* that needs a broader and deeper education in these areas.

Attend to it at once.

Did you read the Cook interview I referred you to? Did you bother to
read pages 9 and 10?

http://www.apa.org/divisions/div28/archive/History/Centennial_Project/Coo
k_interview.pdf

Or are you just content to make silly abusive noises to see what the
effect is? This seems to be all you really are up to - manic posts
shouting abuse. What you are doing makes no sense beyond that for
reasons I have now explained ad nauseam.





Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories
etc.,
and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have written.

No - they are your views. I showed examples of your views in another
thread - with your name and time stamped. You are a liar.

I have repeatedly advised you to look into the logic of intensional
contexts. It's because you don't read (and act upon what you read)
carefully that you write the falsehoods that you do. You *persistently*
confuse/conflate what *you* "think" with what is the actually the case,
and for many of the reasons I have outlined to you and others before.

This is all demonstrable, ie public - so others can see it for
themselves if they wish.

--
David Longley



--
David Longley

In article <90a62bf10bd59d7bd9739d93913ee8d7@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50ZBcpFdNF$$EwIg@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <b62729a66f3201c37798a4451a9f810e@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WEpKQtBejE$$Ewf8@longley.demon.co.uk...
In article <57d8b42474145449cc15b3a36470b037@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f2ymWDks$+$EwC3@longley.demon.co.uk...
That would still be behaviour though - how would we *look at* it,
*talk
about* it etc. The important point to see is that some of our
behaviour
is harder to *talk about*.

Longley's position has been proven wrong here several times.

Really? Where?

I showed counter-examples. Neuroscientists using the words: "memory",
"mind"
and "representation" in their work that got Nobel prizes; clearly not
nonsense as your hypothesis claimed.

There are matters of fact which you really do need to pay some
attention
to.

Fact: You admitted you are not in agreement with the vast vast majority
of
neuroscientists.

I'm sure there are thousands of others neuroscientists who would say the
same thing. That's what research is like.

Fact: You do not know about the many levels of description that describes
the hierarchy of scientific domains.

I said I did not understand what you said and I don't in fact subscribe
to the *levels* idea of reductionism. I have explained that elsewhere..

Fact: Your hypothesis that neuroscience is nonsense because of the use of
words like memory and representation has been proven incorrect.

I didn't say that neuroscience was nonsense. I said a lot of nonsense is
talking in neuroscience.

Fact: You have not read the papers referenced at Chalmer's site; they
form a
core of basic understanding of the CAP-related issues. There fore you
cannot
know much about such issues.

I didn't say I had not read the papers at Chalmer's site. I said I had
not read *all* the papers at Chalmer's site. Even if I had, I would not
agree with them all, and I would not understand some of them either.
Some would not be comprehensible.

Fact: You have not read Gazzaniga's works - again, forming a core of
neuroscience information.

I have not read his work, I know of his work. But he is not the only
person to write about neuroscience. I do not need to read every book or
every view on what is being done to have something useful to say.

I am
specifically referring to work which I have done and work which I have
covered in doing that work.

Therefore, anything you suggest needs to be taken lightly, as it just may
as
well lead to a discourse on the use of blue turtles in Chinese soup as
much
as leads to something I have not already heard about or thought of.

This does not follow. But you are of course free not to listen or heed
anything I say. All I ask is that when I correct you on matters of
demonstrable fact - ie what the position of radical behaviorism is or
what the problems of intensional contexts are, that you get these right.

If you wish to disregard them after that - that's up to you. if you look
closely, most of what I am doing is pointing out matters of fact. This
is quite a subtle point, and this needs to be read carefully. In the
final analysis, Quine, Skinner, etc could all be "wrong" or bettered -
that has to be accepted. But what I am doing is not saying that they are
correct, at least not the way that some seem to think that I am. What I
am doing, and what Glen is doing is correcting falsehoods about what
others assert that Quine, Skinner, Glen and I have said, or we are
correcting false conclusions which others assert are inferred from what
has been said. In the final analysis, what Quine, Skinner, Glen, I etc
have to say will be judged by whether it works in conjunction with many
other things that work. To date, that assessment, in those terms is
actually very positive, and Glen and I have tried to explain that what
is said to the contrary is largely just academic propaganda.


It is *you* that needs a broader and deeper education in these areas.


I suspect we *all* do.

Attend to it at once.


I do my best.

Did you read the Cook interview I referred you to? Did you bother to
read pages 9 and 10?


http://www.apa.org/divisions/div28/archive/History/Centennial_Project/Coo
k_interview.pdf

Or are you just content to make silly abusive noises to see what the
effect is? This seems to be all you really are up to - manic posts
shouting abuse. What you are doing makes no sense beyond that for
reasons I have now explained ad nauseam.





Language is, first and foremost, *public* behavior.

He cannot account for private use of language - thoughts, memories
etc.,
and
he believes using words such as memory shows that thousands of
neuroscientists' work is nonsense.


These are *your* views of what I have written, not what I have
written.

No - they are your views. I showed examples of your views in another
thread - with your name and time stamped. You are a liar.

I have repeatedly advised you to look into the logic of intensional
contexts. It's because you don't read (and act upon what you read)
carefully that you write the falsehoods that you do. You
*persistently*
confuse/conflate what *you* "think" with what is the actually the
case,
and for many of the reasons I have outlined to you and others
before.

This is all demonstrable, ie public - so others can see it for
themselves if they wish.

--
David Longley



--
David Longley



--
David Longley