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



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).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Answer the question Eray.
What you write below does not.

--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) writes:

sci.philosophy.tech
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As it has already has, you're obviously mistaken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete Gray wrote:

-------------- Eat shit and die, ponce! -Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes: | | >Eray Ozkural exa wrote: | | | | >> Luckily, scientists do not pay attention | | >> to any of the philosophy of science crap :) | | >----------------- | | >You're ass-backwards, they ALL adhere | | >to Philosophy/Theory of Science | | >or they are NOT Scientists, by definition. | | | | This is nonsense. There is no such definition. | | | | Sure, scientists adhere to the scientific | | method. But that is not at all the same | | as adhering to what goes under the name | | "philosophy of science". | | Hi Neil, | | It's important to recognize what Philosophy | does - it is Philosophy that routinely ventures, | willingly, into uncharted 'areas', typically, be- | fore other disciplines recognize that there's | stuff out-there that is not yet Reified. | | And I'm not saying that only Professional | Philosophers do such. | | Even a Mathematician or a Physicist must | become a Philosopher' when she or he | encounters show-stopping stuff with respect | to their accepted positions. | | When such occurs, the accepted stuff, while | remaining the accepted stuff, gets set aside | in favor of 'free-form' exploring of the show-stop- | ping stuff - a search for clues - the seeking of a | toe hold upon which formal structure can be | constructed. | | When such happens, whoever is involved be- | comes a Philosopher - venturing, willingly, into | uncharted 'territory'. | | Philosophy gets a toe hold, and then other | disciplines apply their standardized tools to | what Philosophy has uncovered. | | This post, to counter, a bit, the recent tendency | here in c.ai.ph toward using "Philosophy" as a | 'cuss-word'. | | It isn't any such thing. | | When it's out-there in uncharted 'territory', it's | arduous work that is inherently respectable, | and not at all for the weak-kneed. | | K. P. Collins
Cases in-point.
Gregor Mendel was a Monk, but he became a Philosopher when he went into uncharted 'territory' to Reify the fundamentals that have become Genetics.
He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.
Galileo was a Pro-Mathematician, but he became a Philosopher when he went into uncharted 'territory' to establish the fundamentals of what has become the Scientific Method, and again when he applied his resort to experiment to the rates of falling bodies, and again when he looked around for what he could do with a telescope and discovered the moons of Jupiter.
He was working as an Amateur, not a Pro.
Newton, finding himself in need of fleeing the Plague, filled his 'time' with [Natural] Philosophy, working relatively-alone at a country estate, as an Amateur, going into uncharted 'territory', and plucking the Jewels of Classical 'gravity', and his Laws of Motion out of the nothingness.
Although he Published, Darwin remained a Life-long Amateur because his subject was 'two'-hot-to-handle. He was a Philosopher, relative, to the status quo, because, although he developed his own 'charts', he was pretty 'lonely' in the following of them/
Einstein, working at a Swiss Patent Office, and doing Relativity, photoelectricity, etc., wasn't, then, a Pro Physicist. He was a Philosopher, venturing forth into uncharted 'territory' to discover Jewel-stuff.
This sort of 'break' with Professionalism is always right-there in the midst of Progress.
And it's always more Philosophy than anything else.
Because it's Philosophy, alone, that ventures into the uncharted 'territory' - even, as I discussed in my prior post, when the existence of the 'uncharted territory' 'pops-up' be-cause of a 'show-stopper' within a Professional realm.
If she or he is going to overcome the 'show- stopper', the Professional becomes a Philosopher - throwing off 'constraint', venturing boldly into the unknown in order to 'move toward' Truth which only dimly glimmers in the unwieldy-ness of the 'show-stopper'.
Anything else 'takes the charts along', and follows them, where Philosophy allows the 'charts' to be left, =Respectfully=, on the shelf, and ventures forth to see what's not, yet, 'charted'.
But if the 'charts' are not left behind, and if they're followed, then the 'explorer' isn't actually Exploring. He or she is just following the charts, and will go where they dictate - which dictates the perpetuation of the 'show-stopper'.
Anything else has to 'fear for its hide' with respect to Pro-specialization's coersed- consensus.
Given that it's been so blatently so, it's 'hilarious' that Pro-Science hasn't gotten- it with respect to Philosophy, no?
Yup.
Forgive me, Please.
I mean no 'offense'.
I mean 'just'-the-Opposite stuff.
'moving toward' Truth is everything.
To so 'move' Freely, absence-of-'chains' is a great Boon.
Why what's here is so seemingly- 'offensive' is explained in AoK.
Anyway, saying that this or that is "just philosophy" is "sour grapes" stuff [AoK, Ap7; "volitional diminishing-returns decision" thresholds set 'two'-low.
What's really 'hilarious' is that folks use language of "convenience" to 'justify' V D-R thresholds, because anyone who l ooks can see that the Ravaging of Humanity that derives in such is the Ultimate 'inconvenience'.
So, go ahead, Dare to be Philosopher.
Don't 'burn' them, but do Dare to 'put-aside' the 'charts' [canned modus operandi].
Dare.
And Dare to allow others to also do so.
When the dust of your venturing settles. the 'charts' will still be there in their Respected places.
K. P. Collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What makes you think I oppose peer-review? I never said that. On the contrary, I believe we should understand peer-review better and implement it on public forums where science and philosophy can be discussed, maintaining high quality output and without permitting plagiarism. (Unlike this forum)
If you think falsification *is* peer-review you only acknowledge that you don't know what we are talking about.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | > here but it seems reasonably obvious). | > | > The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | > already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | > future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | > unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | > | > One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | > pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | > pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | | Not in defense of Ken's theory... I'm not a physicist and I don't | think I have the time to find out whether it is correct. | | Short. Popper's theory was naive. | | Falsifiability was evidently a wrong or insufficient notion as showed | by later philosophers of science who understood scientific theories. | (Popper not having too much insight about hard sciences didn't really | understand the extent of "fact" and "theory") | | In particular, if you have a new formulation of physics that can | explain everything known that's a wonderful thing. It is OF COURSE not | pseudo-science. | | A good example for pseudo-science is "behaviorism" a la Skinner. I am | quite serious. It's just like Alchemy. | | Ken merely claims to have something like superstring theory in a | sense. And also pertinent in his claims is a model of reality that is | based on continuous functions. That would likely result in phenomena | incompatible with a quantum formulation and it could be tested with a | proper experiment. He just needs to design one experiment if he is | serious. | | Thanks, | | __ | Eray Ozkural
Hi Eray, I'm serious, and I've done a lot of work explaining how the 'quantum' approach just approximates the Continuous physical reality that's described in Tapered Harmony - including pointing out Errors in interpretation.
It's been a pretty 'lonely' endeavor because, as you know, the 'quantal' approach has been refined over the course of the last 100 years, so all the Pros, who've invested a lot in comprehending the 'quantal' view are quite satisfied with its handling of physical reality - in a way that's exactly analogous to the way that adherents of Ptolemaic Astron- omy's Earth-centered view persisted in that view for 1,000 years, and 100 years after Copernicus established the Sun-centered view.
'quantal' calculations 'work' in a way that's analogous to the way that Ptolemaic calc- ulations 'worked' - at the cost of forcing a False view of physical reality upon adherents of either calculational method.
I've tested TH via every experimental result that I know of, and it's handled their data just fine. While doing this, I've also eliminated every 'fuzzy' thing - such as 'quantum weird- ness', resort to 'randomness' [making 'necess- ary' resort to statistical approaches], etc.
I think some folks've listened and heard, but it's also been clear to me that, because 'qm' is so generally accepted, folks have been a bit 'shy' about pursuing TH's Continuous view.
That's understandable.
Thus far, TH's greatest successes have been with respect to Reifying physical reality at all scales - 'bridging' what have been relatively- discrete 'specialties' within physical science.
TH has already proposed many new things within this realm, all of which are testable, but so far, all of these things can also be calculated via 'qm's techniques, so folks who have long- 'familiarity' with 'qm' tend to stick to its methods.
With respect to these things. the main difference between TH's and 'qm's approach is that TH imposes no 'weridness'.
In the end, I expect that folks will see this one thing as a sufficiently-substantial advance in understanding to accept TH on that basis alone.
But there's more that cannot even be imagined until TH is comprehended - so, after TH comes to be accepted because it eliminates all the so-called 'weirdness', it's then that the Revolu- tion that's in TH will begin.
All this said, I do understand your point about proposing an experiment that TH can handle but 'qm' can't.
I've done a lot of that already, in the context of existing experiments [trying to work from stuff with which folks are 'familiar']. The 'problem', thus far, has been that I've not been able to 'break through' folks' willingness to accept the 'weirdness' that 'qm' forses upon their comprehension of physical reality - folks =like= the 'weirdness'. It's kind of like a 'tonic' with respect to everything that doesn't quite work-out - "Hey, look! More quantum weird- ness!" - and the 'weirdness' 'validates' this or that conceptualization.
And woe to anyone who'd eliminate it :-]
There are several areas - way beyond the level at which I discuss TH publicly - which are converging nicely upon exactly the sort of convincing experiment that you point to.
With respect to practical applications of TH, there will definitely be new Electronics, new Chemistry, and, probably new 'propul- sion' technology, and any of these will be established via the sort of experiment that you point to.
I don't want to make excuses, but my per- sonal circumstances have been 'unsettled' for a while, and I've just been working quiet- ly, as I can, given those circumstances, while, basically, just doing what's necessary to stay Alive.
I'm not concerned because I've long experi- ence with such 'difficult' personal circum- stances, and understand that they are actually useful because they 'maintain the heat' that enables the doing of the work :-]
[They elevate the "volitional diminishing- returns decision" threshold as it's discussed in AoK, Ap7, which, given comprehension of NDT, is a good thing that allows one to see stuff that would, otherwise, be 'invisible' ['habit- uated-out-of-awareness] - but this is what also makes the doing a 'lonely' thing - folks in more- comfortable circumstances have no reason to exist at elevated "volitional diminishing-returns decision" thresholds, so things remain 'invisible' to them, which makes discussing stuff pretty- hard. [Note to casual readers: =Do not= venture into the "zone of randomness" [AoK, Ap4], which is part-and-parcel with elevation of one's "vol- itional diminishing-returns decision" threshold, without =first= comprehending NDT to at least the level that's given in AoK.]
Cheers, Eray,
ken [K. P. Collins]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes | >| >| > I know of no experimental results in any | >| >| > Physical Science that are not already | >| >| > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | >| >| > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | >| >| > orate new experimental results without | >| >| > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | >| >| > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | >| >| > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | >| >| > Verified. | >| >| > | >| >| > Happy New Future! | >| >| > | >| >| > K. P. Collins | >| >| | >| >| This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you | >write, | >| >so | >| >| I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go | >| >wrong in | >| >| rephrasing the above. | >| >| | >| >| You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already | >explains | >| >the | >| >| results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that | >this | >| >| theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to | >| >incorporate | >| >| new experimental results without any problems. | >| >| | >| >| Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite | >| >Popper | >| >| here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >| >| | >| >| The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory | >| >doesn't | >| >| already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by | >any | >| >| future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >| >| unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >| >| | >| >| One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting | >| >why | >| >| pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you | >| >have | >| >| pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | >| >| | >| >| | >| >| -- | >| >| David Longley | >| > | >| >You've just not read, sufficiently, with | >| >respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've | >| >realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to | >| >be in what's quoted above. | >| > | >| >As I've explained a couple of tomes in | >| >other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been | >| >discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 | >| >years, and I write for folks who've been | >| >following the discussions all along. | >| > | >| >I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' | >| >by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's | >| >already been reiterated sufficiently - be- | >| >cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with | >| >my small resources what I Know is their | >| >best use. | >| > | >| >It's well-documented that, if you'd've | >| >shown any interest in any approach | >| >other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing | >| >a question with respect to a particular | >| >experimental result - you'd've faired | >| >better in our 'interaction', David, | >| > | >| >But all you do is this 'personal-attack' | >| >stuff. | >| > | >| >I'm supposed to do what with respect | >| >to such? | >| > | >| >So, I stand on what I've posted. | >| > | >| >'go away'. | >| > | >| >K. P. collins | >| > | >| > | >| It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new | >to | >| you. What I say is said benevolently. | >| [...] | >| -- | >| David Longley | > | >I stand on what I posted. | > | >What you've 'said' is B.S. | > | >K. P. Collins | > | > | | Ok Ken, have it your way - but unless your behaviour changes I reckon | you are going to find it very difficult to realise *any* of your stated | objectives.
"There you go again" - holding the 'sword of Damacles' over my head in the form of the Tryanny of the 'status quo' - 'advising' me to 'move away from' Truth because, if I don't, folks'll 'move away from' me.
That's not my 'problem'.
My Problem is to 'move toward' Truth.
Period.
| You don't seem to listen to anybody. This is always a bad sign. | | -- | David Longley
Read your last two sentences before a mirror :-]
While you do, Ponder the relative Values of Truth and bunches of oft- repeated words.
I Listen to Truth.
Period.
K. P. Collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<DL>

But it *is* a problem for you. I was trying to suggest a solution to it. Surely that was clear?
The "status quo" is your (potential) audience surely?
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes | | <DL> | >| | >| Ok Ken, have it your way - but unless your behaviour changes I | >reckon | >| you are going to find it very difficult to realise *any* of your | >stated | >| objectives. | > | >"There you go again" - holding the 'sword | >of Damacles' over my head in the form of | >the Tryanny of the 'status quo' - 'advising' | >me to 'move away from' Truth because, | >if I don't, folks'll 'move away from' me. | > | >That's not my 'problem'. | > | >My Problem is to 'move toward' Truth. | > | >Period. | > | | But it *is* a problem for you. I was trying to suggest a solution to | it. Surely that was clear? | | The "status quo" is your (potential) audience surely? | | -- | David Longley
'my' potential audience' is anyone who's willing to 'move toward' Truth.
The 'status quo' is group-wise-consensus.
Truth doesn't 'care' about such.
'moving toward' Truth is Hard.
I'm not saying that it isn't.
I'm not saying that I'm 'oblivious' to the Costs inherent in 'moving toward' Truth.
I'm not oblivious to such.
It's just that it =Needs= to be done, David.
Folk've been Slaughtering one another, and if not that, then Ravaging one another, since the Beginning, be-cause NDT's stuff needed to be done, but wasn't.
So I did it.
There's no 'arguing' about it, David.
I can't 'move away from' Truth just to 'please' you or anyone else.
If you don't like it, go your way with my good wishes.
I Guard Free WIll.
K. P. Collins
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

This is getting really old. It's essentially the same exchange that has been taking place for many weeks by multiple posters and Ken. Is there some point (Yes/No)?
Ken is composing and writing his "message" while only reading yours (and similar from other posters). It's obvious he's reading but not listening. Regarding which message is programming Ken's brain most effectively, I'd give long odds to Ken.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.