>>What did Skinner have to say about that? You don't know, do you?
Do you think Chomsky ever read Skinner's book Verbal
>Behavior? What was Skinner's position on subjectivity? Thinking? Imagining?
>Creativity? Attention?
Glen: I think you made a massive amount of good points. However, why do we
need to replace the strategy of chomskies et al who seem to have an
abelievable skill to pretend that they did not read Skinner (I am sure they
had to, did Chomskie go to school? how old is the old chap?) to achieve
their personal self-serving needs in the game called Science with making the
name of cognitive neuroscience a "bad" word? Surely, given your obvious
propensity to seek justice, you do not really think that there was or is no
value in cognitive neuroscience approach. I am sure you did not mean to say
that.
I don't know about you, but the older I get the more I think that before
there is a clear answer, as in how physiology produces the phenomenon of
thought or... an emotion, there is a need for several waves of scientific
"myphology" to occure. What do you think?
You see, I do understand the Skinner's argument, probably one of the
greatest minds in .. let's call it psychology (are you OK with that?)... he,
as many others, was getting frustrated with the mumbo of those as not
intelligent as he was. But don't you think it is not really the answer to
the frustrations? The reality is as such, there was a huge, however still
limited alphabet of problems him, or Pavlov, or any other guy/girl in the
field was able to find a solution. You'd agree with this one, right?
I think what is totally ligit here is the fact that the bunch of psycho
sciences is still not only young, but young because we still see no
evidence that the first and most important part of scientific investigation
is done. What is it? It is properly selected part of phenomenology as we all
still fighting about what the hell we are studying. I, personally, feel OK
with the fact that we shifting from some more intelligent descriptions of
human phenomenology, in a metaphorical form, as, for instance, in Skinner,
to much less intelligent, but commercially/politically popular as of
Chomskie.
Adrian is about to get the feel of this rather convoluted and fragmented
science/neuroscience. I think one part of our reality to accept is the fact
that we are functioning in very merky waters, still... At one point, I
accepted it and... my life suddenly became happier as you can't go around
life and keep getting pissed (is that a scienfitic term?). You know what I
mean?
The other thing I thought I'd bring up.. so you know. ...Do you know that
until Luria HAD to deal with the issues of firearms made wounds and
promissed to find some solutions, Stalin and then his apparatchiks, in the
Soviet Union, prohibited everything else in science of psycho whatever, but
Palvolv's behaviorism. So, you see, after that this is what happened: the
old what used to be Russian genofond of those endoved with intelligence was
, for the first time in the human history (Russians normally do not live in
diaspora, only if someone asked them , not nicely though) a nation's
genofond was probably for forever changed as many many thousands of
scientists who try to think/say differently ended up, often with their
relatives, in GULAGs. Do not get me wrong, OK? I respect your position, etc.
What I am trying to say that one should go after a specific offender, not
the tribe he/she belongs to. Don't like Chomskie? Publish your stuff about
his approach. That would be a fair game.
I am sure Adrian is sitting down there and thinks: well, boy, I simply asked
these guys a question where to get bloody information, but look... this is
what happened! See. Adrian, it's good that you have heard it all. One day
it's going to work for yah.
Glen, we are OK, right?
Cheers,
KK
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview
