IUBio

the liver and the brain

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Sep 7 04:22:10 EST 2004


In article <%67%c.8937$lP4.670682 at news20.bellglobal.com>, Allan C 
Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie at yahoo.ca> writes
>
>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:yllXWiBvUNPBFwTN at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8d8494cf.0409060842.c5a0327 at posting.google.com>, dan
>> michaels <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> writes
>> discussions which bear on the "correct psychological stance". The fact
>> that Michaels makes such great efforts to "try to ignore the extremist
>> viewpoints" is basically no more than a frank but ironic statement that
>> he ignores all the relevant science (and philosophy) because **he
>> doesn't think it relevant!** But that's his basic problem. It's idiocy
>> incarnate!
>
>David, through your own words you are not one to talk about ignoring
>philosophy, since you seem to do the same thing.

How things seem to you may just be something you need to work on.

> Are you more qualified to
>discuss philosophy than I am?

Almost certainly. Furthermore, I certainly know how to recognize 
philosophy, and I can tell the difference between philosophy and 
inconsequential metaphysics. You sadly, can not.

> I bet I do a lot more of it than I do.  Yet
>you dismiss any philosophical discussion that might criticize your precious
>behaviourism.

You seem to pay about as much attention to what you write as you do to 
what others write. Guess what the consequences of that are likely to be.

>
>I have always found it odd that Glen referenced someone pointing out what
>was wrong with cognitive science who pointed out that a major problem was
>that philosophy was being ignored ... yet he and you and Wolf constantly
>seem to argue that philosophy is unimportant and should be ignored, and
>constantly ignore any philosophical arguments.

That's because *you've* ignored the philosophy.

>
>> Ironically, not only is that false, it's egregiously hypocritical.
>> Michaels can't see the extent to which he (like Zick etc) expresses his
>> own dogmatic ignorance in c.a.p (and tries to recruit others to share in
>> his ignorance), he can't see the extent to which this amply demonstrates
>> his "intellectual dishonesty". Here, he's second only to Zick amongst
>> current c.a.p posters when it comes to demonstrating this quite absurd,
>> self-defeating, pitiful lack of insight.
>
>Oh, please.  Lester and Dan and Eray may or may not be dogmatists, but that
>does not defend you from the charge of dogmatism.  And if you doubt, simply
>look at how you react to the not-completely-converted patty when she dares
>to disagree with your behaviourist teachings.

I suggest you look more carefully into the notion of "dogma".

Do you have any idea what I was referring to in the above and related 
posts? The answer is no. What was the key *philosophical* concept which 
was referred to (and illustrated) in my responses to the above 
individuals?
>
>> Given that this is one of the best understood creatures on the planet,
>> is this speculation, or has Michaels been browsing some of the many
>> excellent website devoted to the genetics, anatomy, physiology and
>> behaviour of this nematode?  This of course is a rhetorical question as
>> Michaels has made it abundantly clear what he wants to use c.a.p for
>> (and it certainly isn't to contribute towards a better understanding of
>> notion of "AI").
>
>David, you are not qualified to dictate what must or must not contribute to
>AI.  You are, to the best of my knowledge, not familiar enough with EITHER
>the philosophy of mind/AI OR with computer science to understand what those
>fields require in order to produce AI.
>

Apart from your above paragraph being yet another non sequitur, to the 
best of my knowledge, the best of your knowledge doesn't allow you to 
make reliable assessments and judgements. I've said this repeatedly in 
response to your telling us how things "seem" to you, yet once again you 
just show how you ignore the practical advice I've given you which might 
well have a) deterred you from writing the above and b) helped you to 
write something better informed and more useful.

Perhaps you feel excluded. I didn't include you in the list of nitwits 
as you haven't been actively posting recently and one can always hope 
that the penny might drop. It clearly hasn't, you can proudly consider 
yourself a member of the Michaels, Zick, Ozkural set.

-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net