Re: How much intelligence?


"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44117778$0$13066$ed362ca5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


As to Curt, his strength is that he intuitively grasps the power of
conditioning and he sees through some of the nonsense puked out by its
critics.

And yet, you refuse to read the Stoics or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, who
also grasp the power of conditioning and yet have a completely
non-behaviouristic view of the world. Are you afraid you might learn
something?

But he is not an expert in the science, and much of what he says is
frankly mentalistic or just plain silly ("rocks are conscious," "the
animal
reinforces itself," "we respond to the contents of our STM" etc. etc. etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). I like Curt, but my opinion is that he needs to
take a step back, read some books and start again in a few years.

Hmmm. You LIKE Curt, because he agrees with you. You dislike me, because I
disagree with you. You certainly cannot say that his arguments are better
than mine except that they start from behaviourist assumptions. And you
claimed once that you were a lecturer, no?

However, I agree with you on Curt. He is trying to do philosophy without
knowing anything about it. However, I would also argue that YOU need to
read some philosophy as well, since you seem horribly ill-informed about
what philosophical problems behaviourism creates.

(As a hint, there have been many discussions on this newsgroup about
behaviourism over the years. If behaviourism is true, not only is it the
case that whether or not anyone is convinced is outside of their control,
but also whether or not you or anyone else ARGUES for a particular side is
outside of their control. Making everything pointless.)


.