the liver and the brain

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Sun Sep 5 16:15:56 EST 2004


On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:27:32 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>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.

Ignorant I may be, David, just not as ignorant as you and Glen. I
don't understand what you are talking about because neither of you
understands what you are talking about. Neither training nor research
carries any import when done in banal unenlightened ignorance.

>>>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. 

I certainly don't understand the basics of your benighted ignorance.

>                                    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. 

Which will be a lot sooner than you do.

>                                                                                    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!

David, I freely admit to being totally unqualified in the kind of
scientific ignorance at which you excel. 

>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).

Blah, blah, blah. Your verbal community seems so restrictive and
completely irrational as to invite the very kind of ridicule and
derision materialists so richly deserve.

Regards - Lester



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list