death of the mind.
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sun Jul 11 18:55:23 EST 2004
In article <40F142CA.6010002 at xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris
<jalegris at xympatico.ca> writes
>David Longley wrote:
>> In article <40F073BA.6080206 at xympatico.ca>, Joe Legris
>><jalegris at xympatico.ca> writes
>>> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
>>>> JL: I agree that some aspects of behaviourism are useful. It does
>>>> that cognitive science is useless. In fact, this is an outright
>>>> contradiction because cognitive science includes the empirical
>>>> EAB even as it rejects the philosophical bluster that tags along.
>>>> GS: No, behaviorism and cognitive "science" offer different,
>>>> incompatible, views of the same phenomena. My guess is that you want to
>>>> argue that cognitive "science" accepts lawful "input-output"
>>>> goes beyond them in considering the "actual mechanisms." That is
>>>> were going to say, isn't it, Joey? But radical behaviorism is not about
>>>> "input-output" relations, and your sophomoric view has no substance.
>>> I said no such thing. Your straw-men are starting to take on lives
>>>of their own.
>>> Cognitive science accepts all of EAB's empirical results but
>>>interprets them as it sees fit, computationally, neurologically,
>>>evolutionarily, etc. Notwithstanding all the lofty philosophical
>>>talk, behaviourism was just a tactical response to the numbing
>>>challenge of investigating animal behaviour without the benefit of
>>>appropriate theory, data or instrumentation. Times have changed. The
>>>techniques and conceptualizations of modern science are at our
>>>fingertips. Why should we pretend that time has stopped?
>> What certainly seems to have stopped is your ability to listen and
>>benefit form other peoples' experience. It's an odd experience reading
>>someone who belongs to the same class of individuals which both Glen
>>and I have spent time teaching, telling *us* what "Cognitive Science"
>>is, when the latter formed an essential part of our early training.
>>Have you looked into chapter 6 of Quine's "Word and Object" yet? Have
>>you spent any time looking into why I have made so much of
>>intensional or referential opacity?
>> As has been said a number of times now, we know what "Cognitive
>>Science" is, *and* we know what Radical Behaviourism is too. That's
>>why we can spot people such as yourself who don't understand the
>> You're writing naive nonsense.
>Actually, Glen didn't know what cog sci is until a few days ago when I
>straightened him out.
I'm afraid you've got that wrong (along with a lot else).
> What does that say about the class of individuals that both you and
>Glen have spent time teaching? Have you spent
>any time looking into why a modern science of behaviour, equipped with
>the tools and techniques that serve the rest of science so admirably,
>has largely rendered moot issues of intensional or referential opacity?
>Although physicists and biologists are ultimately committed to the
>extensional stance, they may speculate, hypothesize, employ fanciful
>metaphors and even intensionality from time to time - anything that
>helps. Cognitive scientists are no different, and that's how they
>differ from behaviourists.
Do you understand what it means to say that intensional contexts or the
idioms of propositional attitude are "not truth-functional"?
Do you not understand how devastating this criticism/explication is?
Of course you can ignore this. People ignore all sorts of things that
it's irrational to ignore or argue against. Even well educated folk do
that. That's why I wrote "Fragments" (and what followed), and that's why
I'm posting here. Just how much have you actually looked into?
What was volume 2?
More information about the Neur-sci