I am bewildered by colleen's (Colleen's??) post which repeats
my correction and restatement of my prior post: is she being
sarcastic in what otherwise appears to be an approving comment,
or has she simply missed the point?
My reference to people who assume that others do not have their
self-rated "broad" experience was a reference to people like her!
I have excerpted some of her exchanges with eugene (Eugene?) to
illustrate the point. (v. infra)
n <Pine.GSO.3.95.970509164340.14715C-100000 at orichalc.acsu.buffalo.edu>
cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu writes:
>>>>no eugene, we are discussing free will. have you read much about it?
>there is much to learn in many disciplines.
Having read what both of them have posted, my impression is that
Eugene has indeed read much about it, and probably long before
Colleen did,, and has had time to think the issue through to a
well-reasoned conclusion, drawing on what he has learned from
(I would guess) at least as many disciplines as she has.
>>and while i am well aware that science does not overlap with religion
(and am in fact not a believer), you cannot deny religious faith,
eugene. it is real. and there are many many many many ways of
explaining the world. science is one, and religion is one, and there
> If one is familiar with the history of ideas, and know (for
example) what "explanation" meant in prescientific times,
and why we have adopted the scientific form of explanation,
and how it has yielded answers to questions which had been
fruitlessly debated for generations, the invitation to think
of "many many many ways" does not mean what it does to someone
who is ignorant of it. Eugene is familiar with it. Colleen
apparently is not, but assumes she knows things that Eugene has
never even imagined.
>> > intuitively, it is very difficult to think that our behavior is
>> > mechanistic. however, there is not a single documented case of a
>> > non-physical (i.e. anti matter (free will if it did not have a
>> > function as a neural outcome)) event conclusively determining a
>> > event. and yet there are a gazillion examples where physical
>> > been shown to cause the non-physical.
>>>> Ignoring spiritualism, I actually thougth the free will to be a
>>then i suggest you get reading. perhaps physicists 'ignore' the
>construct, but many scientists do not.
> Here is the arrogance of ignorance again. Colleen assumes
that Eugene has not read much. She thinks she has read more.
She neglects the possibility that he has read more than she
and is aware of the history of this problem. My inference
from what he posts (perhaps not clear to her because of
the density of references, implicit but obvious to anyone
familiar with the history) is that he has.
>> In a scientific frame of reference, there is no "consciousness". So
far there is no evidence of "consciousness" to be a nonphysical
>>(where did you hear this?)
>when you've read a bit you will have learned that there is MOST
>a consciousness from a scientific reference. for pete's sake, what you
>are thinking at this moment is contained there.
> Again, the arrogance of assuming that when he has read what she
has read he will know as much as she does (and therefore agree
with whatever it is she is trying to say).
More striking is the glaring example of what I (and other "naive"
"narrow" party-poopers) have complained of: not just failure
to define "consciousness" but complete obliviousness to the
NEED to define it. "For pete's sake, what you are thinking at
this moment is contained there."
Is she actually saying his thoughts are "contained" in his
"thinking"? Or "Consciousness is something that contains
thoughts"?? Or what on earth IS she trying to say?
If she does intend this as an implicit definition (God forbid
that she OR Searles would attempt an EXPLICIT definition),
we can proceed--if, of course, she can define "thoughts"
and (more subtle, but more important) define "contained".
>i do not understand this point so i cannot reply.
>>> > i would suggest to the original poster that this is more a
>> > with by the philosophers (not that this precludes, by any means, a
>> > scientist from attempting to understand it).
>>>> Philosophy != science. I thought we had ample evidence from the
>> about insight-gaining properties of philosophy (or, better, lack
>i do not understand this whatsoever. have you no use for philosophers
Possibly Eugene has had some of the same background I had. I was a
philosophy major, at one of the top undergraduate schools in the
country (Kenyon College), but outgrew it. One impetus was what I
got out of Wittgenstein (a philosopher, Colleen): the insight that
many traditional "questions" in philosophy were not real questions
--i.e., were not framed in such a way as to allow an answer.
>> > for some good, well-written work on the latest
>> > scientific/cognitive/philosophical view (called cognitive
>> > the mentalistic paradigm), i would suggest a book of essays by
>> > searle (philosopher) entitled "minds, brains and science," or the
>> > writings on the subject (and experimental work in the visual
>> > francis crick.
>> > colleen specht
I have already complained about Searles, who makes confusion
sound respectable. Experimental work in the visual system
is not exactly his specialty...
New York Neuropsychology Group