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

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Drx$bTF+5q$$Ew$i@longley.demon.co.uk...
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.

Rarely on the fundementals (like a physicist that is part of the physics
community (and not a netkook like you), disagreeing with the rest of
physicists on whether atoms should be *called* atoms or else all of physics
will be reduced to nonsense!!!

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..

Whether you or I subscibe to it or not is not the issue; it is whether you
understand that that is how science, historically and currently, is done,
conceptualized and engaged by people. You do not have psychologists doing
experiments at SLAC and you do not have astronomers exploring the bottom of
the sea.

And, whether you understand that given these levels or not, it is a fact
that science has used analysis and reduction to explain N-level phenomena
with both N-level *AND* N-1 level mechanims and processes and properties.

Note that it is not the case that Nature is so easily and inherently
subdivided; the levels are an artifact of how we went about *looking* at
Nature (which is probably more to *your* point!!) But then my point would
be - yes we know that; that is why we have interdisciplinary studies and
systems sciences etc. That people are still pigeon-holed into specific
disciplines like physics and molecular biology is more due to the
now-entrenced curricula of academia and how the workforce is ordered.

This is something that *I* have said, and something that I heard from

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.

WTF does that mean?

( A typographical mistake) Did you not understand? A lot of nonsense is

Besides, I have shown examples of what you did say and you have professed
what I indicated.

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.

Understood.




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 agree!

The issue is whether what you are saying *is* useful in this forum in the
emphasis you provide (rather esoteric)!

And the talk about talking is
pretty much, IMHO, inconsequential to the vast majority of people working in
AI, and Cog. Neuroscience. Why? Because the vast majority *know* of the
pseudo-metaphorical nature of most terminology in their fields. That
assigning a term to something based on extant knowledge or historical
precedent does not necessarily *mean* instant reification in exactly the
manner the term suggests. We *know* that!!

For example: use of the term "mind" suggestted for centuries a monolithic
single homunculus in brain located somewhere specific (ala the Cartesian
Theater) doing all the conscious controlling and interacting with the
environment as well as having an "inner life".

That scenario has for the most part given way to a more sophisticated and
accurate version of what mind *means* and thence how we talk (and what we
mean) when we use the term. That mind is now though of as a distributed
set-o-processes that deal with different aspects of brain_in_environment,
body, and the inner_life aspects. That the word *mind* has morphed to
accomodate new data about brain and yes *behavior*, is a tribute to the way
science proceeds.

Ditto *representation*, *memory*, *feelings* etc.

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.

I get it! I read your refs. And my reply is above WRT extensional- and
intesnsional-stance issues.

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.

I am trying also.





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

In article <b85c649ba97baf6e48044d4997debcca@news.teranews.com>,
OmegaZero2003 <OmegaZero2002@yahoo.com> writes

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Drx$bTF+5q$$Ew$i@longley.demon.co.uk...
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.

Rarely on the fundementals (like a physicist that is part of the physics
community (and not a netkook like you), disagreeing with the rest of
physicists on whether atoms should be *called* atoms or else all of
physics
will be reduced to nonsense!!!

I have said no such thing - I'm sure you know that.




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..

Whether you or I subscibe to it or not is not the issue; it is whether
you
understand that that is how science, historically and currently, is done,
conceptualized and engaged by people. You do not have psychologists
doing
experiments at SLAC and you do not have astronomers exploring the bottom
of
the sea.

But you do have psychologists, physicists, all sorts of biologists,
computer scientists etc working in areas like AI and neuroscience. They
are not working on different "levels", they are working on different
aspects of behaviour.

And, whether you understand that given these levels or not, it is a fact
that science has used analysis and reduction to explain N-level phenomena
with both N-level *AND* N-1 level mechanims and processes and properties.

This may be how you understand science, ie as reductionist.

It is not
how I understand science or how I was taught neuroscience/behaviour. Nor
is it how I see many others who write about science talking.