death of the mind.
lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 18 18:25:33 EST 2004
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:27:20 -0400, "Allan C Cybulskie"
<allan.c.cybulskie at yahoo.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:6AuKc.70$Gf7.23587 at news20.bellglobal.com...
>> John Hasenkam wrote:
>> Despite what Lester et al. say, behaviorism explains a lot; radical
>> behaviorism is very careful to set limits on those explanations. Some
>> people think these limits mean that RB denies the value of attempting to
>> explanation outside those limits. I don't think so. It just claims that
>> wt present we don't have the tools and methods to go beyond.
>That would be a more methodological behaviourist approach, and both David
>and Glen insist that they are not methodological behavourists. David and
>Glen seem to clearly insist that RB can explain pretty much everything of
>interest, and Skinner did as well.
>> Note that
>> neurology and molecular biology appear to be going beyond those limts,
>> but they don't. As Glen says "physiology mediates." That mediation is
>> beginning to be analysed, but IMO that analysis is atill at the stage of
>> gathering observations that may be useful.
>I am finding it incredibly annoying the number of cognitive scientists who
>want to reduce everything to neurology without having enough evidence to do
>so or to do so in a manner that still allows us to talk meaningfully about
>things like behaviour, values, emotions, etc, etc.
It's by no means clear whether Wolf is a behaviorist or just cognitive
science fellow traveler. He's also got programs running in the brain
that somehow don't include feelings and experiences but might be
called the mind if we are careful. So maybe Wolf's a computationalist
in behaviorist's/cognitive scientist's clothing.
Regards - Lester
More information about the Neur-sci