At 03:43 PM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
Marsha:
Science is conventional knowledge and IS based on
conceptual constructs all the way down. I never said that makes
science useless, only that it is not a reflection of ultimate
reality. And we've been though the fact that underpinning science
today is politics and economics which does affect pattern bias.
[Krimel]
What I keep trying to impress on you is that all knowledge is conventional
and conceptual all the way down. This is not at issue. The issue is what
sort of conceptual framework best captures the dynamic flow of perception,
of experience. What is the fewest number of concepts we can find to explain
the greatest amount of experience.
With regard to politics and economics you continue to confuse science as a
social phenomena with science as an intellectual enterprise. Science as
science, intellectually rejects both politics and economics as influences
but as a matter of social practice they have their effects. Both scientists
and the MoQ claim that this social intrusion on and intellectual pursuit is
unfortunate and immoral.
[Marsha:]
Unfortunate, immoral and an often active pattern.
>[Krimel]
> In fact I spelled out explicitly that I agree with a particular
> scientific approach to the question you asked. To wit:
>the causes of behavior and I would adding thoughts are:
>
>1) Biology
>2) Personal History
>3) Present circumstances
>
>Thinking and acting are processes that result for these three "causes".
[Marsha:]
Your statement that I originally questioned was "Intellect is a
biological function..." It seemed to me that you were reducing
intellect to brain chemistry. But, of course, later you stated this
was a conceptual construct, you wrote "knowledge is conventional and
conceptual all the way down". So what is 'brain chemistry' except a
conceptual construct, a pattern. And all correlations and causes are
also conceptual constructs, patterns. Right?
[Marsha]
Based on what? Now if you want to define science as whatever you
think, that's fine with me. In that case, I will even apologize for
expecting an answer accompanied by or pointing to some kind of evidence.
[Krimel]
I am not defining science as whatever I think. I am defining whatever I say
here as whatever I think. As I keep saying; I attempt, as do most here, to
offer reasons why you should think as I do. Isn't that the point of having a
forum.
For evidence of why I think what I said above, try "Behaviorism" by John
Watson, although he focused mainly on the classical conditioning model he
lays the ground for what followed. B.F. Skinner's "Science and Human
Behavior" offers and exhaustive treatment of the subject and Skinner is
surprisingly readable. He originally planned to be a writer. His B.A. is in
English and it shows.
Skinner was very dubious about "thinking" but thought that, to the extent
that it could be defined, it too is control by the environment. Aaron Beck's
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy fairly successfully attempts to directly apply
the principles of behavioral control specifically to thinking.
In the mean time you might actually address what I said. Do you think the
three point above are adequate? Are there too many causes? Not enough? What
would you add? What would you subtract?
[Marsha:]
I cannot answer your questions. I do not know. My best answer
would be that 'thinking' is a combination of inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual static patterns of value. I'm curious that's
why I asked you to explain what you meant by stating that 'thinking'
was a biological function. What you think is interesting.
Marsha
Not a very strong case, yet you seem to assume all the prestige of
Science and the scientific method.
[Krimel]
Not a strong case and yet you avoid the points made in favor of what you
assume I assume or what you think I am thinking or how you think about what
you think I am thinking about. You ask the occasional question and I provide
my thoughts on the answer. You ask good questions and I try to give good
answers but in the end it devolves into this...
Interesting. You don't understand my questions. You're so cute when
you are confused.
Marsha
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
