Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Feb 11 05:20:29 EST 2004
I've not read any of this work, but:
"Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.0402110159.5a3eee8f at posting.google.com...
> "AlphaOmega2004" <OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2b87008a9fd70789cb534988f584011a at news.teranews.com>...
> > I think the conceptual error these guys make is that one cannot explain
> > psychological terminology by reference to neuropsychological concepts.
> > These are *all* bona fide *ways* of conceptualizing a space that is
> > multi-dimensional in the broadest sense. TO think one can divorce the
> > psychological from the neuropsychological is non sense.
> The problem with these authors is that they have published the book in
> 2003, while it seems to me it should have been published around 1930s
> or 1940s when Wittgenstein was worshipped by many. Ah, still the
> church of Wittgenstein thrives I guess, and I pity that I'm not a
> priest and true believer (in God) from time to time. Anyway, you get
> the idea. If it weren't for an absolute conviction in the truth of
> what Wittgenstein said and his followers, there wouldn't be such a
> book. That's an important point.
I can look it up if it's too much, but what was
Wittgenstein main point - what was 'the drift' of
> Note also that the authors have written some serious non-sense. In
> particular, this one:
> "It is wrong, *conceptually* wrong, to suppose that memory is always
> of the past, or to think that memories can be *stored* in the brain in
> the form of the strength of synaptic connections (Kandel, Squire,
Perhaps they address the point that what
has become established within 'memory'
tends, strongly, to determine what will be,
subsequently, established within memory.
This is some of NDT's Fundamental stuff,
BTW [which is, in general, why I don't read
the work of other Theorists - too 'painful'].
> As a computer scientist, I know very well what "memory" is, and *that*
> our intuitive notion of "memory" coincides with the technical term of
> memory, *and* furthermore that it also corresponds to "memory" in
> neural associative memory models, etc. That is to say, there is *no*
> conceptual mistake. And I also direct your attention to the stupid
> blurb about "the past". Oh, memory is not of the past, great, then
> perhaps it is of future? Trust me, this is non-sense. I agree with the
> authors in that a good philosopher must be able to distinguish sense
> from non-sense, but so must a scientist and from both perspectives
> their statement is pure non-sense.
> That's why I think they sounded more like village idiots than
> philosophers when they said such things. They say even sillier things
> about computationalism as Pierre demonstrated, you can knock down
> their arguments with a single analogy.
"computationalism" - briefly, what do they say?
Nervous systems =do= literally Calculate everything
that they do.
It's easy to demonstrate that this is so.
In fact I did, yesterday, in msgs I posted
here in bionet.neuroscience.
Cheers, Eray, ken [k. p. collins]
> Eray Ozkural
More information about the Neur-sci