Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

David Longley David at
Tue Feb 17 13:48:51 EST 2004

In article <4032321a.43643711 at>, Lester Zick 
<lesterDELzick at> writes
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:15:11 +0000, David Longley
><David at> in wrote:
>>In article <40311aad.36469116 at>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick at> writes
>>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:26:27 +0000, David Longley
>>><David at> in wrote:
>>>>In article <4030e04a.30726781 at>, Lester Zick
>>>><lesterDELzick at> writes
>>>>>Hi Eray -
>>>>>I certainly agree with what you note here. The problem with arguments,
>>>>>rationales, etc. is that they are only about as useful as people's
>>>>>comprehension of them. I think they are conclusive once understood but
>>>>>Neil considers them totally or mostly word salad and you seem to be
>>>>>somewhere in the middle.
>>>>>But I'll say one thing for the arguments, they're brief. So they admit
>>>>>of evaluation in pretty straightforward terms. The only complicated
>>>>>rationale is for S "differences between differences" resolution of
>>>>>Russell's paradox and I'll be posting more on that in a few days.
>>>>>The unfortunate thing is they don't have any obvious direct relevance
>>>>>to immediate issues in ai as the subject stands. The only significance
>>>>>I can think of at the moment is that these ideas indicate that the
>>>>>idea of actual sentience in ai is really something more than programs
>>>>>and whatever one chooses to project as ai in turing terms.
>>>>>This latter is more on the order of robotics or in cognitive arenas
>>>>>what I refer to as artificial neural turologies - ants. Which I find
>>>>>nothing wrong with because it will probably prove more useful than
>>>>>actual models of general cognition. However as Jim Bromer points out
>>>>>in his Re: Reasoning and AI yesterday, it has been the case that
>>>>>designers and programmers have thought they were more or less
>>>>>discovering and writing equations of cognitive behavior and sentience
>>>>>with their programs and that has definitely not proven to be the case.
>>>>>So I consider that it would behoove ai architects to understand why so
>>>>>they can reconsider whether they are aiming at actual cognition or
>>>>>just robotics and the difference between the two.
>>>>Go and find out about *discrimination learning*.
>>>Yeah. David I've become havituated to your presence in terms of the
>>>clinical definitions offered by Neil Rickert. You have nothing to add
>>>to these conversations except claims of extraneous proof. So unless
>>>you have something new to offer I suggest you find some other fields
>>>to fertilize besides my own.
>>>Regards - Lester
>>A few questions: 1) have you looked into what discrimination learning is
>>all about and considered why I keep suggesting you look into it? 2) Have
>>you had a look at the Bennett and Hacker book or even a review of it? 3)
>>Do you see any similarities between your behaviour and that of Collins?
>Everywhere I look, David, all I see are your transparent forensic
>attempts to alter questions of truth and falsity of various issues to
>redundant questions of behaviorist scholarship. I don't doubt you are
>a behaviorist scholar. I do doubt you are relevant to discussions of
>truth and falsity. At least you do not establish your relevance to
>anything except the codex of behaviorist orthodoxy.
>David, you are a blivit - that's ten pounds of shit in a five pound
>bag. And like shit you just tend to hang around and have a hard time
>cleaning up. By your standards of trite habituation Glen is only a
>semi blivit - 7 or 8 pounds of shit in a five pound bag - because he
>occasionally has something germane to offer.
>Regards - Lester

Are you able to answer any questions coherently? Have you looked into 
what discrimination learning is about? Have you looked at the book 
referenced in this thread? Do you see the similarities between your 
behaviour and that of Colins? (oh, and Rickert)?

If you want to learn about "Truth" - Try Quine's "Pursuit of Truth".
David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list