death of the mind.

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Sat Jul 24 10:57:20 EST 2004


On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 08:57:58 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <fa69ae35.0407231857.334fa4b2 at posting.google.com>, Eray 
>Ozkural  exa <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>>feedbackdroids at yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>>news:<8d8494cf.0407220958.2d08e14 at posting.google.com>...
>>> erayo at bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural  exa) wrote in message 
>>>news:<fa69ae35.0407220601.2cc94db3 at posting.google.com>...
>>> > 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,
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll have to take the terminology issue up with Adler. As I see it,
>>> not all materialism is beh, nor dogmatic. My materialism is neither,
>>> of course. Does your DM dogmatically assert the truth of the
>>> nonexistence of things unprovable? I doubt it. According to Adler,
>>> making working assumptions are not the error, but asserting dogmatism
>>> as truth is error.
>>
>>Agreed. By "metaphysical materialism" he might mean something else.
>>
>>DM does not dogmatically assert that things unprovable do not exist.
>>We can discuss it; it's an interesting thought. If something is not
>>provable, does it exist?
>>
>Materialism is not the issue, the issue is extensionalism.

The issue is materialism. Without it extensionalism is nothing.

>If you don't accept that 'to be' (exist) is to be the value of a 
>variable (Quine), what use can be made of (talking about  or referring 
>to) an entity? 

And where does this mysterious variable of which one is the value come
from, pray tell?

>                        What point is there to having entities within a 
>scientific ontology which have no identity?

Positivist mysticism again?

>                                                                       Surely the whole point of 
>science is to discover useful functional relations between such values?

Hardly the whole point.

[. . .]

Regards - Lester




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list