Re: Crick's answer to lester's conundrum

On 26 Apr 2006 07:54:46 -0700, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 14:05:03 -0700, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 11:49:14 -0700, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 10:42:31 -0700, "feedbackdroids"
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:


http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/crick04/crick04_index.html

================

He had very little patience with orthodox philosophers. He felt they
became too prematurely trapped in matters of terminology. I am reminded
of a seminar on consciousness he gave at the Salk in the eighties. A
philosopher-whose name politeness forbids me from mentioning-raised
his hand and said "But Dr Crick ... you are attempting to solve the
so-called problem of consciousness yet you haven't even bothered to
define it...can you clearly define what you are talking about?" Crick's
reply: "My dear chap, there was never a time in the pre-DNA era when a
lot of us biologists sat around the table and said 'Let us first
clearly define life before we explore it'. We just went out there,
forged ahead and found out what it was. It's no doubt good to have a
rough idea of what one is talking about but matters of terminology are
best left to philosophers who spend most of their time on such things.
Indeed clear definitions often emerge from empirical research. We now
no longer quibble over questions like is a virus really alive".
Semantic hygiene, Crick felt, was largely a waste of time.

===============

Yes well the truly unfortunate thing here is that Dan casts Lester as
an orthodox philosopher and his alter ego as the voice of wisdom

Woah. Crick must have been on to something here. Did you read as far as

I read further than you cut what you prefer not to contemplate.

... you are attempting to solve the so-called problem of consciousness
yet you haven't even bothered to define it...can you clearly define
what you are talking about? ...

Attempting to solve what? You can't clearly define what you are or
aren't talking about.

One presumes that, had Crick decided to wait for the unnamed
philosopher to nail down the definitions of this/that/oranythingelse
before he could proceed, Crick's ghost would still be waiting.

You presume quite a lot. You presume you know what you're talking
about. You presume you know who's what. You presume you can speak
for others for no better reason than you can speak.We're still waiting
for you to demonstrate what you say holds any significance to science.

The obvious implication of Crick's comment is that, if we wait before
everything is completely defined before we start work on something,
then we'll all be ghosts before we ever lift a finger.

Whereas if we just steal the results of others we won't have to wait
quite as long.

~v~~

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cricks answer to lesters conundrum
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... He had very little patience with orthodox philosophers. ... You presume quite a lot. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>philosophers. ... >>It's misdirected to think of behaviorists as scientific, Patty, they ... cognitive scientists? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Cricks answer to lesters conundrum
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... He had very little patience with orthodox philosophers. ... Crick's ghost would still be waiting. ... You presume quite a lot. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... >>You claim to hate philosophers, ... > I have to confess I've never actually met a philosopher millenia older ... Your failed attempt at 'cuteness' just reveals your poor reading ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... >>this case, be called mathematicians. ... >>but they would be called scientists. ... >>That's the problem with philosophers. ...
    (sci.cognitive)