the liver and the brain

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sun Sep 5 12:27:32 EST 2004


In article <413a374d.12662723 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick 
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 21:27:35 +0100, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In article <4139f9ab.7231107 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:16:34 +0100, David Longley
>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <41392480 at dnews.tpgi.com.au>, John Hasenkam
>>>><johnh at faraway.?.invalid> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8d8494cf.0409030853.7911b8bf at posting.google.com...
>>>>>> > >In contrast, since ungulates pop out into the world being able to walk
>>>>>> > >and run within hours, I was also wondering that their visual systems
>>>>>> > >might also be similarly advanced, as compard to humans and other
>>>>>> > >animals like you mentioned. Do they have to "learn" what a lion looks,
>>>>>> > >or might their visual systems already have some hard-coding regards
>>>>>> > >this?
>>>>>
>>>>>To come at this from a tangent, it is interesting to recall studies showing
>>>>>how axons for varous senses, after injury, can end up projecting to regions
>>>>>other than their "programmed" targets. Auditory axons will project 
>>>>>to visual
>>>>>areas, perhaps explaining the echo location noted in some blind 
>>>>>individuals.
>>>>>Not many studies on this but the few are surprising in their results.
>>>>>Results such as these suggest a top down guidance of axonal 
>>>>>projections, but
>>>>>I'll freely admit I find that very spooky.
>>>>>
>>>>>John.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What's even more "spooky" (although predictably so) is the far more
>>>>prevalent (and unquestionably demonstrable) empirical finding that
>>>>people (cf. Michaels, Zick, Ozkural, Legris, Savain, Navega etc as a
>>>>small but sadly representative, sample) make the "connections" that they
>>>>do make - *and yet fail to make far more useful and reliable others*.
>>>>
>>>>What should attract more interest than it does is the fact that people,
>>>>as a rule, so tenaciously hold onto, and mutually reinforce their naive
>>>>intensional heuristics or prejudices despite abundant (*extensional*)
>>>>evidence to repudiate or replace them.
>>>>
>>>>How people align themselves in their public responses to the above
>>>>assertion can, I suggest, be taken as a fair, pragmatic & extensional
>>>>indicator of their scientific acumen.
>>>
>>>This is hardly remarkable, David, whether for the reasons you cite or
>>>because the people involved think they are correct. You fail to note,
>>>however, that you are in exactly the same category as those you
>>>stigmatize and chastize. You fail to explain why your own verbal
>>>behavior is any more original and less slavishly imitative than that
>>>of others. You're a behaviorist. That's the bottom line. We already
>>>knew that. And nothing you've said so far has shed any light on the
>>>subject of behavior as defined by behaviorism as a first cause.
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>
>>No Zick, you presumptuous, irritating thought-disordered troll-idiot.
>>
>>Whilst what I said most certainly *does* apply to me, a less
>>presumptuous, less thought-disordered, more attentive and astute
>>individual than yourself would surely have grasped from the available
>>evidence, that there's a fundamental, and importantly *relevant*
>>difference. Unlike you, I've spent over thirty years doing research, and
>>therefore, relative to you (and some of the other presumptuous idiots
>>with uninformed critical opinions here) it's *therefore* more likely
>>that I've got something more informed and worth paying attention to
>>*relative to* some others posting here on these matters.
>
>David, I'm beginning to wonder exactly what the hell you and Glen
>have been doing for the last thirty years or so. What's therefore more
>likely is that except when you train animals you don't have a clue as
>to what you're talking about.
>

No you ignorant twit! *You* don't understand what *we* are talking about 
*because* you haven't done *any* research or had any training in these 
areas! You naively presume that you are in a position to critically 
evaluate what you can't understand.

>>Whether or not I'm a behaviourist really is quite besides the point.
>>That you along with some of the other ignorant troll-twits here have
>>such a hard time grasping that *in spite of the evidence*, is why I say
>>you're a presumptuous, irritating thought-disordered troll-idiot.
>
>No. In your and Glen's case the fact that you're behaviorists is
>exactly the point. You've learned nothing in the last fifty years and
>have nothing to offer behavior analysis except trite and stale
>materialist bromides.
>
>>Happier now you've been fed <g>?
>
>I'd be a lot happier if I could see some evidence of innovative
>thought on your part.
>

In your case you're not ready for "innovative thought", you don't even 
understand the basics. It's been explained to people like yourself, 
Michaels, Verhey, Ozkural etc ad nauseam that given that you don't 
already grasp the basics, you're unlikely to pick up on what may be 
"innovative" until you do some of the ground work. That people such as 
yourself presume that you are "naturally" qualified in behavioural 
science and able to create your own theories on "intelligence" etc 
whilst also dismissing corrective feedback from those who know 
considerably more about these matters than you do (this is, I remind 
you, basically all a product of a *verbal* community), is in fact a 
example of what I have been referring to as intensional opacity, and 
what comes with it, namely the irrationality of our folk psychology. You 
should be able to tell from your own history that you are *not* 
qualified in these areas - yet this doesn't stop you (or many more 
reputable others sadly, some no doubt excellently qualified in other 
fields), from nevertheless behaving completely at odds with that fact!

I think the most constructive way to deal with such "errors" is to view 
them as "irrational", superstitious behaviours which demand social 
correction, and that's precisely what I (and others) have been doing for 
some time. The fact that you (and others) don't learn from this is 
really just further grist to my mill (as I've now suggested several 
times now).
-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Sm-97apr.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Workj97.pdf



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list