David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ifszI8RKDjPBFwSg at longley.demon.co.uk>...
> 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).
That is 100% crap. Since psychologic "verbs" have NOTHING,
ZERO, NADA, THE NULL SET, to do with Mathematicians
and their retarded *Political* lookup tables concepts of *idioms*.
Which is the reason history shows that
it was in fact Darwin, Freud, Jung, and Skinner that invented Behaviourism.
And not the Neolithic Skrimshaw morons of Chomsky, Feynmann,
Harvard and Sweden Math-a-Morons Inc.