Re: type writers and tooth aches II

"JPL Verhey" <matterDELminds@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Curt Welch" <curt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:20050718173925.944$rg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "JPL Verhey" <matterDELminds@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> It was debated whether tooth aches are as physical as type writers.
> >> According to Skinner they are. To my own surprise I found myself in
> >> sudden and utter agreement with Skinner. What he once said, is indeed
> >> entirely correct.
> >>
> >> What Skinner probably didn't realise when he said it though, is that
> >> his
> >> type writer is as much an experiential phenomenon as is his tooth
> >> ache.
> >> What matters, is that all experiential phenomena are of the same
> >> "stuff" - the brain activity in his own skull.
> >
> > So you think Skinner didn't understand that the brain activity in our
> > skull
> > is what creates our experience? What on earth do you think he belived
> > created it?
>
> All I know is that he and his radical followers up to this date, respond
> in extreme allergic fashion to words like mind, conscious experience
> etc. and for decades tried to render it irrelevant to science in general
> and to behavioral science in particular. They would not have done so if
> they understood the importance of all brain activity, ...

Brain activity is behavior. That's what behaviorists study.

The problem with English is that it has two langauges - one for the
physical world, and another for the mental world. The connection between
these two lagnauges, as I've said many times, is still unknown. No one has
yet found a complete physical description of a machine which can create all
human mental behavior or a physical description of the human body which
explains all humaan mental behavior.

The meaning of the words in the mental langauge is based on subjective
informtation that can not be easily studied by science. All mental terms
are disconnected from the firm foundation of knowlege created by science.
People have beliefs about how they think they are connected, but we have no
good objective data that can prove how to correctly connect them.

All the knowledge of science exists in the physical world. You can't use
science to study the mental world because there's no objective data there
to do science with - it's all subjective data.

The point of behaviorism is to make it clear that if you want to do
science, you can't wander into the world of mentialease. Once you bring in
words like mind, and intention, and thought, feelings, and qualia, you are
in a world where science doesn't exist. To call it science is to not
understand what science is.

The point of behaviorism is to extend the physical langauge, as far as
possible, into the mental domain, without ever losing it's grounding in
objective data.

The brain is physical, and is part of what can be studied by behaviorism.
The physical state of the brain at any time, is something that can be, and
is, studied by behaviorsm. Neruons have behavior which can be studied
objectively.

So let me repeat what you wrote above:

> All I know is that he and his radical followers up to this date, respond
> in extreme allergic fashion to words like mind, conscious experience
> etc. and for decades tried to render it irrelevant to science in general
> and to behavioral science in particular.

Of course, that language is not grounded to objective data so you can not
trust it. It's NOT SCIENCE because if it's not grounded to objective data,
it can't be falsified.

> They would not have done so if
> they understood the importance of all brain activity, ...

Brain activity IS SCIENCE as long as you don't start trying to talk about
it with the bogus language of mentalisms. Talking about brain activity in
terms of neurons firing IS SCIENCE. Talking about brain activity in terms
of thoughts and memories is not science.

Behaviorism doesn't deny that things are happening in our head which we
make reference to with words like "memory". But they understand that the
meaning of the word "memory" is very much in question because it's meaning
is not grounded to objective data.

If you followed my talk with 1Z about qualia, you might grasp part of the
issue I have with mental terms. I believe that the correct way to ground
the meaning of all mental terms to the physical world is to assume that all
mental effects are caused by physical actions of our body. 1Z however,
doesn't not like to believe that. He thinks there is a possibility that
something non-physical is at work creating our mental effects.

We have NO OBJECTIVE DATA to resolve this difference of opinion. And
without that objective data, all mental terms, can not be defined in
physical terms - or we don't know if the way we choose to define them is
correct or not.

What this means is that the entire language of mental terms is ungrounded.
It's free to mean anything the creator of the language wants it to mean.
As long as you keep adding new words, with meaning that is defined in terms
of other mental terms, then the entire mental language is consistent with
itself. But does the language tell us something real about the universe we
live in, or is it based on a fantasy? We can't tell.

I believe that one of the key foundations of our mental language is the
belief that mental effects are not totally physical. And I believe this is
in conflict with how the universe we live in actually works. If I am
correct, a key foundational belief of the entire mental language we use in
English, is invalid - which means that aspect of all the mental terms is
invalid.

The people that founded behaviorism saw this language problem, and simply
decided to stay away from all the ideas (words) which can not be grounded
to objective data. Instead of wasting time trying to "prove" what the
correct connection between the two languages was, they just threw out all
the questionable words, and started to work on extending the physical
language, to explain all behavior - including the internal behavior of the
brain. Behaviorism is the only true science here.

Most people that put behaviorism down, and run back to their mental
language have never grasped how dangerous and unscientific it is to use a
language which is not grounded to objective data.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: consciousness, was Re: etc.
    ... What constitutes an explanation? ... as the one you gave, into the language of behaviorism, ... behaviorism - or even some of it's most basic concepts. ... traditions of science. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A step by step discussion
    ... Both behaviorism and cognitive "science" have their assumptions, ... the facts of Kandel's experiments are what they are and they are ... Behaviorists and cognitivists are not saying the same things in ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Behaviorism takes another hulling at the water line (still: Binding memory despite co-locate
    ... A quick Google check of the 833 articles published ... behaviorism, since it had nothing to do with the ... discussion of any finding of modern science he finds ... The science of mind has long superseded black-box ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... >> Behaviorism is not science but speculative philosophy. ... >> it speculative is its primary tenet, the absence of mind and mental ... >> materialism as science is just becoming manifest to some. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Phenomenological Continuity and Discontinuity
    ... >behaviorist tradition moved so painlessly to cognitive psychology ... "subjective" and "behaviorism" do not go together. ... Miller had the audacity to author the above given this fact, ... science fiction known as "Cognitive Science" (that's not something I'm ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Loading