neuroscience training?

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 13 06:56:39 EST 2004


} } GS: So, instead of answering the question you are going to argue that
} there
} } IS an ether?
}
} Dr. D.: No, instead of arguing, I'm going to not. Sorry, I see nothing
} productive in it.
}
} GS: Somehow that doesn't surprise me. You have evaded every important
} question I asked you.

Dr. D. No I haven't. I've answered many of them, as a quick review of the
messages listed in the references head will indicate.

GS: I shouldn't have said "every." I should have said "most."

Dr. D.: I've merely
refused to answer them in the way you wanted me to,[...]

GS: No, you simply failed to answer many of them. And those that you did
answer, were given incomplete answers that were canned - you know, your
canned speech on how you can't be put in a box? But remember the thread
started with your endorsement - given a question about neuroscience - of
cognitive psychology. I questioned the utility of so-called "cognitive
processes" and suggested that they are so much phlogiston. Apparently that
wasn't the answer that you wanted because you began to tantrum. I admitted I
was trying to draw you into an argument.....and why not? Why should I not
repudiate cognitive "science" if I think it is largely trash? You are, of
course, welcome to not participate. But please show a modicum of honesty in
your claims that you somehow dealt with my argument.

Let's examine some of what went on in the cases where you did respond with
something resembling relevancy. I asserted that "representationalism" was
the core of the identity of cognitive "science." I asserted that if a
position was antithetical to "representations," then it wasn't "cognitive
psychology." You came back and told me about Gibson - an
anti-representational view of perceptual behavior. I came back and said that
there was an important sense in which that made Gibson a behaviorist,
whether he could see it or not. Of course, you don't like that, and so you
ignored it, returning with insults instead.



Dr. D. [...]which was to
provide you with a jumping off point for your prepared argument. Even
so, you managed to ignore what I said, assume what you prefered, and
carry on with your plans. For example, when you tried to engage me in
a discussion about a point of philosophy of science you no doubt had a
collection of answers as well as categorization of me prepared for,you asked
me what "did in" the ether. I indicated that since people
are still doing science on the question today, it can hardly be called
"done in".

GS: You mean like creationism?

Dr. D.Now, the fact that there are engineers and physicists
working on these projects is fairly irrefutable. The European project
was written up in Science not long ago. Not being a physicist, and
seeing how they've amassed millions of dollars for their work, I just
trust the facts I read and conclude that they seem to find the
question still worth asking.

GS: But you are aware of the other side, no? Which you chose to ignore. As
such, your answer was disingenuous at best. I guess it is that old "prove
your not in a box thing."

Dr. D. Rather than accept this obvious
conclusion, as well as the fact that I have posted nothing indicating
an opinion on the subject, you "ask" me if that means I'm "arguing"
that there is an ether, a question that follows from exactly nothing
I've said, and only from your penchant to engage in arguments you hold
dear.

GS: Nonsense. If you felt that you were too stupid to talk about the ether
thing, you could have just stated so. However, once you start talking about
the "new search for the ether," it is certainly relevant to ask you what you
think. Perhaps I shouldn't have phrased as I did, but your answer obviously
suggested some allegiance to the idea.

Dr. D. That's just the most recent and glaring example. The message
thread that grew to over 400 lines was filled with that sort of thing,
and I chose not to engage in it. No offence to anyone who finds that
an engaging passtime, but I don't.

GS: Right. You like philosophical stuff when it is coming out of your mouth
and nobody takes you to task. Cognitive "science" is representationalism,
and representationalism is retarded. That's the kind of stuff you don't
like. You are willing to discuss empirical issues, but should someone
attempt to reveal your conceptual errors (which are far worse than any
empirical mistake) you get all plugged up. Not that it matters to
me.....except when you endorse cognitive "science." Then I feel the need to
set the record straight.

} But, of course, who can put you in a box....you're
} so.....well......just so darn special, now aren't you?
Dr. D. That'd be one of those self-referential conundrum thingies:
"special" == "box"

GS: No, that would be one of those "your arrogant" kind of things.

Dr. D.: I just refuse to have my chain yanked, and refuse to yank back. If
you
feel like your chain is being yanked, look at your own hands, because
it's not me yanking.


GS: It started out by me condemning cognitive "science" and you didn't like
it. You became rude, and I'm not one to go whimpering off. You don't want to
defend your philosophy (oh, yes it is) then don't. That won't stop me from
attacking it, though.

"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:aos2505dbuckm9d9plse0u0fmbfgs62g6l at 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 19:08:48 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> } } GS: So, instead of answering the question you are going to argue that
> } there
> } } IS an ether?
> }
> } Dr. D.: No, instead of arguing, I'm going to not. Sorry, I see nothing
> } productive in it.
> }
> } GS: Somehow that doesn't surprise me. You have evaded every important
> } question I asked you.
>
> No I haven't. I've answered many of them, as a quick review of the
> messages listed in the references head will indicate. I've merely
> refused to answer them in the way you wanted me to, which was to
> provide you with a jumping off point for your prepared argument. Even
> so, you managed to ignore what I said, assume what you prefered, and
> carry on with your plans. For example, when you tried to engage me in
> a discussion about a point of philosophy of science you no doubt had a
> collection of answers as well as categorization of me prepared for,
> you asked me what "did in" the ether. I indicated that since people
> are still doing science on the question today, it can hardly be called
> "done in". Now, the fact that there are engineers and physicists
> working on these projects is fairly irrefutable. The European project
> was written up in Science not long ago. Not being a physicist, and
> seeing how they've amassed millions of dollars for their work, I just
> trust the facts I read and conclude that they seem to find the
> question still worth asking. Rather than accept this obvious
> conclusion, as well as the fact that I have posted nothing indicating
> an opinion on the subject, you "ask" me if that means I'm "arguing"
> that there is an ether, a question that follows from exactly nothing
> I've said, and only from your penchant to engage in arguments you hold
> dear. That's just the most recent and glaring example. The message
> thread that grew to over 400 lines was filled with that sort of thing,
> and I chose not to engage in it. No offence to anyone who finds that
> an engaging passtime, but I don't.
>
> } But, of course, who can put you in a box....you're
> } so.....well......just so darn special, now aren't you?
>
> That'd be one of those self-referential conundrum thingies:
> "special" == "box"
>
> I just refuse to have my chain yanked, and refuse to yank back. If you
> feel like your chain is being yanked, look at your own hands, because
> it's not me yanking.
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list