Some 3-D Trig [was Re: Mar...]

-------------- Eat shit and die, ponce!

-Steve

Pathetic that is.

There is no such a thing.

Conmen deserve no respect. You are but one of them.

Arrogant patronizing drivel. This sort of post never changes people's behavior in the intended direction. It's, well, childish and immature to suppose that it does.

Arrogant patronizing ad hominem drivel. This sort of post never changes people's behavior in the intended direction. It's, well, childish and immature to suppose that it does.

Ah, but you have to see that it is more in the way of advancing than knocking down and I don't believe for a moment that "falsification" was the basis of scientific progress. Feyerabend's epistemological views remain strong to day IMO. Not necessarily all of his views are to be idolized. That should never be the case with any thinker.

Skinner thinks so because he has the wrong answer to the mind-body problem. His views I cannot torture myself with any longer. My view corresponds exactly to the one reported on plato.stanford.edu's "behaviorism" entry. If you have any objections to those particular views, you will have to give specific examples. And *then* I will answer those specific points.

One could in practice, as I have done maybe 10 or 20 times on this list, show the absurdity of "behaviorism" as a valid philosophy of mind. You don't have to assume the correctness of the computational view of the mind or any other view to see the absurdity. Take any high-level cognitive function, such as remembering (or self-reflection or 15 others) and see how it is not *necessarily* reflected in external behavior (as you recall talking of "internal brain behavior" is simply absurd in Skinner context). Proof done. That's why philosophers of mind seem to despise the kind of fake philosophy as purported by Skinner. We don't like it when a theory offers no explanation.

OTOH, the connection between behaviorism and functionalism is a mathematical one. (It would probably be best characterized by complexity theory.) I will summarize that functions come first, behavior is second in nature. Hint: Turing's Test shows the connection intuitively. Can you guess what it is?

Quine is not on topic here. If there is a philosophy of science newsgroup, we could talk about his epistemology and views on scientific practice there. As you may have guessed I dislike it when somebody tries to show philosophy of language as a support for his theory of science.

If you want to know my view on science, it goes like:

• Scientific practice is an intelligent process

This argument has its origins in my observation that any "intelligent" act is necessarily a scientific practice and vica versa. Therefore it is no coincidence that there is likeness in the way primitive hunters tracked down their prey and the way astronomers track down their celestial prey. I cannot elongate here much further, but suffice it to say that I believe every major function of cognition can be seen in scientific practice. The argument is not intended as an analytical argument but rather as a "persuasive" argument (not rhetoric).

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

Read the Introduction to Popper's 1982 "Realism and the Aim of Science".

Answer the question Eray.

What you write below does not.

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

sci.philosophy.tech

In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes

It certainly *is* on topic. Look at the thread title. I, and I suspect others, want to see you substantiate your dismissive remarks. As I se it, you've made outlandish, ignorant and quite ridiculous assertions in your posts and I want you to justify them by showing that you do have an accurate understanding of what you are so dismissive of.

You arrogantly and ignorantly disregard important and influential themes in philosophy, logic and the philosophy of mind/science and yet have the temerity to demand that others discuss these matters with *you*!. From what I've seen (and I've been in this business some time) I don't think you know enough to engage me or others in serious discussion on any of these matters.

You've shown you don't understand what methodological behaviourism amounts to either in theory or practise, you've also shown that you don't understand Skinner's radical behaviourism, and it's also pretty clear that you don't understand what the major themes of contemporary philosophy of mind are.

In spite of this, you're rude and abusive when people who do know about these subjects try to correct you.

Substantiate your remarks re Quine and Skinner.

Real scientists have mathematical theories, not a bunch of fuzzy words and cheap philosophy. UNLIKE you, shall we say. Tell us about any theoretical work you have done or you have on your mind that is not stamp collecting and which relates to *intelligence*. *then* we'll talk.

[See? This group is about artificial intelligence and philosophy. We're certainly not interested in which hormones are secreted when a person is subjected to X or stupid shit like that]

...

Eray: Real scientists have mathematical theories,[...]

GS: So you're saying that mathematical models are a prerequisite for a science? I guess that we would have to say the original statement of evolution by natural selection wasn't science.

Eray: [...]not a bunch of fuzzy words and cheap philosophy.

GS: You'd have to point out which words are fuzzy. Off hand, I'd say the fuzziest is "mind;" but I don't use that one. Actually, the philosophy doesn't come cheap. Wrong or right, it takes a long time before one can offer interpretations of complex behavior in terms of known behavioral processes. You, for example, can't do it.

Eray: UNLIKE you, shall we say. Tell us about any theoretical work you have done or you have on your mind that is not stamp collecting[...]

GS: You're even too stupid to think up your own insults.....Eddington, wasn't it?

Eray: [...]and which relates to *intelligence*. *then* we'll talk.

GS: But you claim that behavior has nothing to do with "intelligence" (even though you don't understand the position that makes the claim that "all is behavior, the rest is naught") so, obviously, you have already defined "intelligence" in such a way that I can't be "right." So why should I address this particular issue?

Eray:[See? This group is about artificial intelligence and philosophy. We're certainly not interested in which hormones are secreted when a person is subjected to X or stupid shit like that]

GS: I'm not much interested in that either, but that doesn't make it unscientific.

snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message