On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:59:37 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>In article <41388c5f.77808384 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>On 3 Sep 2004 08:01:26 -0700, iain.macmillan at health.wa.gov.au (Iain
>>Macmillan) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>>A patient with heart failure in 1610 might have cough, chest pain and
>>>swollen ankles. Eminent physicians of the time might see chest pain as
>>>important, and treat with aspirin, cough as important and treat with
>>>opiates, or swollen ankles as important and treat with leeches - all
>>>of which treatments would be likely to produce benefits, but not with
>>>the mechanisms or for the reasons the treating physicians would give.
>>>>Aspirin in 1610?
>>>>If he'd said "willow twigs or bark" would it have made any difference to
>the point being made?
As usual you miss the point, David. Aspirin is the result of evolution
natural selection, and survival of the fittest. So is behaviorism,
which has befallen its natural fate. If medicaments were left to
behaviorists, doctors would still be administering willow bark tea.
When the somewhat squishy brain is finally recognized as nothing more
than a differential engine, we can finally move on to simple mechanics
of the mind and mental effects instead of whining over the lack of
money and efficacy of our behavioral and neurological ministrations.
Regards - Lester