Colleen's brief but bewildering FURTHER postings made me wonder if I
remembered my own words correctly. Certainly they must be mysterious
to anyone reading them out of the context of what she is commenting on.
Was it this? or a previous post? I'll re=post both for benefit of
late-comers.
F. LeFever
In <5lb8r3$hg9 at dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
Frank LeFever) writes:
>> 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
>are more.
>>> 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
>completely
>>> > 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
>physical
>>> > function as a neural outcome)) event conclusively determining a
>physical
>>> > event. and yet there are a gazillion examples where physical
>events have
>>> > been shown to cause the non-physical.
>>>>>> Ignoring spiritualism, I actually thougth the free will to be a
>nonissue.
>>>>>>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
>process.
>>>>>>>(where did you hear this?)
>>when you've read a bit you will have learned that there is MOST
>definitely
>>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."
>> Where?
>> "Contained"??
>> 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.
>> Well spoken!
>>>>>> > i would suggest to the original poster that this is more a
>question dealt
>>> > 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
>history,
>>> about insight-gaining properties of philosophy (or, better, lack
>>> thereof).
>>>>>>>i do not understand this whatsoever. have you no use for
philosophers
>>either, eugene?>
>> 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
>revolution or
>>> > the mentalistic paradigm), i would suggest a book of essays by
>johnathan
>>> > searle (philosopher) entitled "minds, brains and science," or the
>late
>>> > writings on the subject (and experimental work in the visual
>system) by
>>> > 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...
>>>> Frank LeFever
> New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
