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.
>>>>>>>>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.
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.
Happier now you've been fed <g>?