Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Tue Feb 17 16:24:58 EST 2004


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:48:51 +0000, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <4032321a.43643711 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick 
><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:15:11 +0000, David Longley
>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>>>In article <40311aad.36469116 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:26:27 +0000, David Longley
>>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <4030e04a.30726781 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>>>>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> 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)?

Of course I'm able to answer reasonable questions reasonably
coherently. Unfortunately you ask questions relating to sciences of
behavior like doing arithmetic on your fingers and toes. Nor do you
read what I write nor answer questions of mine. Your only argument is
the hackneyed reduction of other's arguments of others to evasive
questions of behaviorist scholarship. So I don't bother to answer or
even address questions you ask.

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

David, have you ever in your wildest diatribes seen any indication
that I don't understand the subject already? Why would I want to
understand Quine's truth or yours or that of any behaviorist who
denies the presence of the only tool capable of analyzing truth.

Regards - Lester




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list