the liver and the brain

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Sep 7 17:06:02 EST 2004


In article <413e18be.42345271 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick 
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:57:54 +0100, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In article <413dd047.33246015 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:33:44 +0100, David Longley
>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>[. . .]
>>>
>>>>As I recently remarked in reference to Zick's similar nonsense, this is
>>>>an illustration of "intensional opacity" par excellence, and it's why
>>>>I've made so much of it here in c.a.p. (and at times actively
>>>>cross-posted to bionet.neuroscience and sci.cognitive to draw further
>>>>attention to the matter).
>>>
>>>Actually, David, all you and Glen have done is behave like a pair of
>>>braying jackasses uttering astonishment that others treat you with
>>>contempt. It's no wonder it took you thirty years to realize that the
>>>only talent you offered behavioral science was as beasts of burden.
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>
>>This is getting very tiresome.
>
>Yes, yes, I quite understand. What I don't quite understand is why you
>continue and yet continue to complain.

No, you don't understand and that's the problem. That, and the fact that 
you don't make any effort *to* understand just about sums you up and 
makes you appear pathologically odd or just stupid.
>
>>Your (odd) behaviour) is, in my view, worth drawing public attention to
>>if only for vicarious purposes given what I've said in the past about
>>how intensional opacity blights our folk psychology.
>
>Good. Please continue. It's about time someone shed some light on the
>mind. Behaviorism has only shrouded the subject in darkness.
>
Mentalism is a (demonstrably dubious, archaic/arcane) philosophy. 
Behaviourism is a subsequent, more parsimonious and useful philosophy. 
These are different "conceptual schemes" or ways of talking/behaving. 
There's therefore no reason why behaviourism should have to shed light 
on "the mind" (a concept which belongs within the mentalistic ontology) 
as it's a different (rival) "conceptual scheme". Behaviourism, and 
therefore Behaviour Analysis repudiates mentalism for sound 
empirical/logical reasons.

Within *evidential* behaviourism (radical behaviourism is more empirical 
still), a careful analysis of language has revealed how the intensional 
or mentalistic vernacular is logically at odds with the languages we use 
for the rest of science. That is, the linguistic structures we rely upon 
for measurement, inference and explanation within science simply break 
down where we use the intensional idioms (or psychological verbs). This 
is taken to highlight something suspect about their reality. In sort, 
this is why evidential behaviourism repudiates mentalism. If one 
continues, regardless, to talk in the mentalistic vernacular, there are 
predictable indeterminacies and irrationalities **whether one realises 
this or not**. I have elaborated this at great length within c.a.p over 
the years, and I have explained what the alternative is with Glen (and 
others' at times) help.

>>You and other incorrigibles like you should consider migrating over to
>>talk.bizarre where it doesn't seem to matter *what* anyone writes about,
>>or whether any it makes sense to themselves or anyone else. What you
>>appear to want isn't educated or informed discussion but social contact
>>with other similarly disposed "lexical-flappers".
>
>Why else would I be talking to you and Glen?

I am aware that by responding to you, I am, alas, reinforcing some of 
your eccentric behaviour. However, you should realise that I'm not just 
responding to you - this is a *public* forum.
-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list