Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Feb 17 18:01:54 EST 2004


In article <403283a0.53792573 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick 
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>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.

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