death of the mind.

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Thu Jul 22 11:58:37 EST 2004


In article <fa69ae35.0407220601.2cc94db3 at posting.google.com>, Eray 
Ozkural  exa <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>feedbackdroids at yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>news:<8d8494cf.0407211804.fa191e2 at posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>> In commenting specifically about such matters, Adler had the following
>> to say in Intellect, Mind Over Matter, 1990, pg X.
>>
>> "... Metaphysical materialism ... has two obvious defects. The first
>> is that it has its foundation in a negative proposition that has never
>> been proved and never can be. In other words, it rests on the
>> unprovable postulate or assumption that nothing immaterial does or can
>> exist. That assumption may be true. Making it is not an error.
>> Asserting it ... dogmatically as an established truth ... however, not
>> as something that may be assumed, 'is' a serious error, a culpable
>> mistake to be avoided ...."
>
>Let's please avoid equating metaphysical materialism with behaviorism.
>
>My digital multism, for instance, is metaphysical materialism, but it
>is by no means behaviorism. Machine functionalism is materialist as
>well, but it is not behaviorism.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Eray Ozkural

You might like to get a better grasp of what "behaviourism" is before 
you start talking about what machine functionalism or metaphysical 
materialism may or may not  be (cf. Popper & Eccles 1977; Putnam 1986). 
Just think what nonsense you might be getting yourself into by getting 
it all wrong in the first place. In fact, forget about the "might" - 
from what I've seen you write to date, it's pretty much a dead cert.

You really don't know what you are talking about. If your lecturers are 
telling you otherwise, change university before it's too late!
-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list