death of the mind.
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Jul 13 11:51:00 EST 2004
In article <40f3f8f8.59519135 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:36 +0100, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>In article <cd0j2b$m5s$1 at usenet.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
>><rickert+nn at cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>><rickert+nn at cs.niu.edu> writes
>>>>>Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>>>>Because the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech. Americans have
>>>>>>taken that to mean that all speech is equally valuable.
>>>>>This American takes Longley's speech as having no value.
>>>>Given the context, that assertion is 'simply' not true. In fact it could
>>>>be put more strongly. As it stands it is a lie.
>>>Longley is deluding himself.
>>Here, once again, we have a *maths* graduate making a 'psychological
>>appraisal' of what he has been told by an applied (behavioural)
>>psychologist viz-a-viz the former's limited awareness of the
>>contingencies controlling his behaviour and the consequences.
>Wherein David once more gamely tries to change the subject from an
>issue to who is qualified to discuss the issue, a subject where he
>feels he can prevail because he is an expert in the history of the
>philosophy of behaviorism and the practice of training animals.
>Regards - Lester
In my experience, the best we can do with some animals is to humanely
contain them. This tends to be managed in rather subtle ways, often
without the animals being aware of the contingencies. Sometimes it's
better that way for all concerned.
More information about the Neur-sci