On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:48:17 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>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.
So, draw attention to it. Go ahead. So far you haven't drawn attention
to anything but your own petulance and unwillingness to discuss issues
in science in specific terms.
Regards - Lester