death of the mind.

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at
Mon Jul 19 11:32:16 EST 2004

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:07:10 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir at> in wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Yes, well, behaviorists like Wolf seem to disagree with behaviorists
>> like GS and vice versa. Thus it would appear that behaviorists by and
>> large don't have any consistent definition of behaviorism apart from
>> it's whatever behaviorists do and say at any point in time.

[. . .]

>In all cases, definitions are human constructs, and therefore are 
>subject to change. The fact that Glen and I do not fully agree means 
>both that neither of us fully understand the subject,

Yes, well, I'll let you explain that one to Glen.

>                                                                                      and that I in 
>particular am uncertain about the scope of "behaviorism." BTW, we can 
>disagree about the scope of "behaviorism" without disagreeing about the 
>futility of mentalist explanations. We can even disagree about the 
>reasons for that futility. We can disagree about a lot of things, in 
>fact. But that disagreement is not evidence that can be used to refute 

The point is that nothing you, Glen, or any other behaviorist says
about behaviorism can be used to refute behaviorism. That is what
makes it a speculative philosophy and not the fact that behaviorism
can't even explain what it is denying when it denies the mind and
mental effects.

What refutes behaviorism is not that behaviorists disagree over what
behaviorism is and maintains. What refutes behaviorism is its
speculative and unscientific nature. Behaviorism can't show that
anything it says with respect to behavior is necessarily true to the
exclusion of other explanations. You like behaviorist explanations
and dislike other explanations? So what?

Behaviorists are just unoriginal materialist cretins. When I make
basic observations on the mechanical nature of sentient behavior, I
offer proof of the universal applicability of my claims. Behaviorists
just indulge in ridicule and name calling to avoid any necessity for
the experimental validation of their claims. No one has to refute
behaviorism's denial of the mind and mental effects when behaviorism
can't validate its claims experimentally to begin with.

I could care less whether you, Glen, or the man on the moon understand
behaviorism in exactly the same way. But when you and Glen come out
with flatly contradictory claims as to what behaviorism says and try
to use that as a basis for arguing nonsense, not only is at least one
of you wrong, but it is evident as well that one or the both of you
isn't even paying attention.

Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list