Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

David Longley David at
Tue Feb 17 18:01:54 EST 2004

In article <403283a0.53792573 at>, Lester Zick 
<lesterDELzick at> writes
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:48:51 +0000, David Longley
><David at> in wrote:
>>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)?
>Of course I'm able to answer reasonable questions reasonably

We will have to disagree there.

>Unfortunately you ask questions relating to sciences of
>behavior like doing arithmetic on your fingers and toes.

Well, it's always a good idea to keep these things simple. However, I'm 
certainly not asking you or others here "questions relating to sciences 
of behaviour", although I do suggest that *you* ask some simpler 
questions. I haven't noticed anyone really ask you any questions other 
than to ask you to try to be less incoherent.

> Nor do you
>read what I write nor answer questions of mine.

That's because you don't make a lot of sense to anybody, and that's 
because you really don't write about anything.

> Your only argument is
>the hackneyed reduction of other's arguments of others to evasive
>questions of behaviorist scholarship.

Perhaps you just don't know enough about any of this to be able to 
understand what you read. There's a simple solution to that Lester, do 
some disciplined reading/studying before offering your opinions posting 
"critiques", asking silly questions and being generally obnoxious.

> So I don't bother to answer or
>even address questions you ask.

There's no *so* to it. You just don't know/understand enough to make any 
useful or coherent contributions. That's not an insult, it's clearly 
just a fact. That you chose to pretend otherwise just makes it harder 
for you to learn - rather like Rickert and Collins in fact.

>>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?

Definitely. I think you write a lot of nonsense. I thought I (and 
several others) had already said that.

> 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.

The answer to that's simple. Quine knows what he's talking about, and 
you don't. Read some of what he's written and learn.

David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list