death of the mind.

David Longley David at
Thu Jul 22 11:58:37 EST 2004

In article <fa69ae35.0407220601.2cc94db3 at>, Eray 
Ozkural  exa <erayo at> writes
>feedbackdroids at (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>news:<8d8494cf.0407211804.fa191e2 at>...
>> 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.
>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