death of the mind.

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at
Tue Jul 13 13:17:57 EST 2004

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:51:00 +0100, David Longley
<David at> in wrote:

>In article <40f3f8f8.59519135 at>, Lester Zick 
><lesterDELzick at> writes
>>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:43:36 +0100, David Longley
>><David at> in wrote:
>>>In article <cd0j2b$m5s$1 at>, Neil W Rickert
>>><rickert+nn at> writes
>>>>David Longley <David at> writes:
>>>>><rickert+nn at> writes
>>>>>>Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolfkir at> 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.

It's certainly better for behaviorists. They need to train and contain
what they can't explain, which is pretty nearly everything except the
history of behaviorism as a philosophy and the applied practice of
animal training regimens.

Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list