In article <413f2622.46257113 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:06:02 +0100, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>In article <413e18be.42345271 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>>>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.
>>Denial often is.
>>>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
>>>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.
>>What the careful analysis of your language reveals is that you fail to
>demonstrate anything you say.
>>>>>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.
>>What I realize, David, is that you haven't responded to anyone. In all
>the years of talk, you have failed to make or even address any point
>at all. All you do is whine, snivel and complain that perspectives of
>you and your cohorts on issues in behavioral science go unappreciated.
>Little wonder. You, Glen, and Uncle Al are cretins of science.You have
>no standing in behavior analysis to protect. Stop being a girlie man.
>>Regards - Lester
The above is why I have frequently suggested that your behaviour is
possibly a pathological, extreme, illustration of intensional opacity. I
say this because of the frequency or rate at which you ignore, or
otherwise neglect or misunderstand what people tell you. You fail to
follow up links/references, and if you do, you fail to understand them.
You do not grasp that this is neglect on *your* part. You, mis-attribute
your neglect to a failure of others to explain matters to you.
Your behaviour is characteristic of our folk psychology. You belong to a
set of individuals who illustrate this all too common pattern of
"irrational" or superstitious behaviour in varying degrees. This *is*
what I am drawing attention to.