--- In analytic@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart W. Mirsky" wrote:

There is nothing wrong with using specialised vocabularies to
discuss a complex subject. You think AI reserarchers don't have their
own jargon?

--- In analytic@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart W. Mirsky" wrote:

No, it's about syntax/software. Searle thinks neurons gerneate
consciousness.

Hello all. I remained thinking in Quine words: if the term
(behaviorism) doesn't fit the account, the term is what should be
dropped. Until now, many misunderstandings came from attributing
Skinner the claims of previous behaviorists, so perhaps it would be
better to focus on the philosophy of mind that can be derived from
the few texts where Skinner exposes his "private events" proposal
(1945, 1957, 1975, 1988), and see if they're objectable and if they
have affinities with other proposals in philosophy. So, instead
of "behaviorist", I'll try to use "skinnerian".

About the previous topics we've been talking, I've claimed that:
* Chomsky's review had serious mistakes,
* the skinnerian views about language have not been refuted by Chomsky
* instead, actual connectionist...

Budd,

I see that you have a good grasp of what Searle has written, and you
seem pretty sympathetic to it all. I don't know about your history
with Stuart, and I can't quite parse all your current exchange, but
wonder if you'd like to explore just one aspect of the topic and of
Searle's writings, and that is about just what computation is, or
isn't.

Up the message list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analytic/message/12187
you wrote:

I recently saw an interesting program on Animal Planet. It was a re-
enactment and discussion of a supposedly documented incident of a pod
of dolphins off the coast of northern New Zealand protecting four
swimmers in deep water from a Great White shark that had entered the
area unbeknownst to them.

According to the recounting of events on the program, a few dolphins
abruptly showed up and began circling the swimmers, seemingly
playfully at first but, as time war on, with a much more aggressive
attitude than is customarily seen in dolphins when around human
swimmers. The dolphins apparently herded the swimmers together as
they seemed to become increasingly aggressive.

You and I, Peter, have gone over this stuff ad nauseum at this point
so I don't really want to rehash it with you yet again. I will try to
be brief below and only address what seems new enough to warrant a
reply (or what may be useful to new people to this neverending
discussion).

--- In analytic@yahoogroups.com, "Peter D Jones"
wrote:

wrote:

Hi Stuart

<< But it says nothing about the substance of Wittgenstein's ideas
which such partisans generally characterise as just a lot of
mystical mumbo-jumbo, etc., etc.>>

The reason I would generally characterise W's stuff as just a lot of
mystical mumbo-jumbo is not out of dogmatism – but because that is
what it seems to me. Perhaps I am just stupid or lazy? I am here
to be corrected anyhow.

I did start a discussion with Walter which seemed to me to bear on
this but he seemed to conclude I could not correctly use the
word "mean" and wandered off. So I never got away from square one

< be knowledge leads to an claim that all actual instances of
knowledge are therefore no more than instances of conjecture. But
if that's the case, we lose the ability to explain what conjecture,
itself is…………..etc>>

This seems like just a word game to me. It I say that absolute
scientific knowledge is not accessible to me I am saying:

[Josh] They are rhetorical signposts of the arguments to follow, you
needn't respond to them.
[Gerardo] You need not write them either. Let's focus on the
arguments.

[Josh] I say it again. We have the text right online. Search for the
word "drive" and show us what you come up with. See if it supports
your allegations. (hint: it does not)
[Gerardo] Chomsky wrote:...

We have a world without evil; this lack isn’t "real" one... but it is
certainly "true" one.

There is a deep difference between the word “real” and “true”. The
first refers to the world of the appearance, which appears like the
contrary and equal action to the true action. In this way, since is...

Hi Stuart

< modern usage of "incontinence"?>>

As far as Augustine goes contience is not merely abstinance from bed
wetting or sexual pleasure – but all lust of the flesh "evil
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies; these are what defile the man."

But my understanding here is more via the lens of the Pelagians

As I understand it via the Pelagians Augustine is saying that
goodness is abstinence from badness – and abstinence from badness is
got only metaphysically – as a gift from god.

As far as I can figure it out the Pelagians understood him to be
saying that actually being generous and fair minded did not cut it –
was no guarantee to give mental serenity. This could only be got
metaphysically – as a gift from god. So - actually physically being
generous and fair minded was a waste of time.

This was a great news for the mega-wealthy of the 5th century – who
were released from any obligation to be generous and fair minded –
why waste their time?