In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970514164047.17472A-100000 at autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu>
cmspecht at acsu.buffalo.edu writes:
>>you might have simply posted to ask me if i were being sarcastic in
>posting back your statment rather than repeating it yourself (below)
>although using different words.
>>please see the top of that 'repost' of your original and edited
>where i wrote the following:
>> "point well-taken (both times)".
>>>i am not sure i have ever heard this phrase used in a sarcastic light.
>>i am sorry that i had to snip all of your examples of my
>ignorance below (my server will not let me respond to a post where the
>response has less text than the post it is a response to). and this
>much less text.
>One can always use an old phrase in a new way, and I thought perhaps
the intent wwas to say the point was well-taken regarding ME (and
perhaps Eugene also)--i.e., that we were the ignorant and arrogant
ones. I am truly sorry if I jumped on what was intended as a gracious
acceptance of my criticism.
As regards "examples of...ignorance": if a gracious acceptance of
criticism had been the intent, then this must surely have seemed
ungracious of me to rub it in. However, it shouldn't be taken entirely
personally: my comments on the "examples" were intended to make some
general points about the history of this sort of problem.
Perhaps in my next post I can make a more constructive contribution by
describing some of the problems posed for definitions of consciousness
posed by some of the phenomena of split-brain patients, and by some of
the dissociations of parallel processing--including some I have seen,
in Deep Dyslexia, for example, and in a case of Proposagnosia.
New York Neuropsychology Group