Krimel said to dmb: Nor can knowledge be achieved by sitting in the corner staring at your navel. Or oh humming about how pretty it all is. The acquisition of knowledge requires a variety of tools and techniques.
dmb says: Yea, I know and never said otherwise. Has anyone ever said knowledge can be gained through navel gazing or humming? I doubt it. [Krimel] You have said many times that mystical experiences or some form of "pure" experience offers something. I will admit that you have never actually said what that is, despite having been asked many times. Krimel said: Let me call this quote from the Fish article to your attention: "What has become an urgent necessity," Pirsig announces (he is hardly the first in history to do so), "is a way of looking at the world that does violence to neither of these two kinds of understanding and unites them into one." I always thought that was the point of ZMM and my interpretation flows from that. You on the other hand twist it into a shape you think overthrows science and naturalism. dmb says: I don't think anti-reductionism overthrows science and naturalism, as I've said repeatedly already. Anti-reductionism is opposed to a particular methodological stance and this opposition has the aim of improving upon such scientific methods, of improving science itself. It is definitely NOT anti-scientific. [Krimel] Now you trot out a new label, "anti-reductionism." What is that? What is it opposed to? How exactly does it aim to improve science? [dmb] By analogy, it's like you're saying economics can be explained in terms of the atoms and molecules in a dollar bill and I'm saying that is not an appropriate method to understand economics. Instead of addressing that, your response is to accuse me of denying that there are atoms, molecules and dollar bills, which would be ridiculous. [Krimel] That is pretty good definition of Dennett's "greedy reductionism" I have explained this to you at least twice in past week. I have offered four other forms of reduction which you fail to address twice now. I have also explained how what I have said is not "greedy" reductionism and invited you to explain specifically how what I have said is this form of reductionism. Or short of that to explain specifically what is wrong with the positions I have outlined. All I can see is distortion and evasion. Maybe you think you have done something else. Please feel free to quote yourself but if you have done anything but offer up labels I missed it. Krimel said: But let's look at your specific charge of "greedy reductionism" with regards to experience and physiology. dmb says: Yes, let's discuss my specific charge. That would be nice for a change. Unfortunately for you, I never used the phrase, "greedy reductionism". I agree that some forms of reductionism are more subtle than others but my complaints are aimed at your reductionism, at the specific claims you are making. I reproduce those claims in my responses so it should be pretty clear what the specific charge is. For example, you said, "we know that emotions are localized in the brain in the evolutionarily significant parts of the midbrain where they are found in most mammals". That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. To call that a reductionist statement is NOT a denial that we have brains or that science can detect neural events. It simply says that it's inappropriate to understand emotions in terms of what that organ is doing when we have them. When you do that you are no longer talking about emotions. You're just talking about brains. Instead of talking about the specific charge, you're merely repeating the kind of thing that drew the charge in the first place. [Krimel] For Pete sake Dave. Get a grip. James was among the first to talk specifically about the emotions. The James-Lang theory which he espouses in his paper "What is an Emotion" outlines his view of emotion pretty well. It remains a controversial position but it has never been completely dismissed. Darwin wrote a book about emotion. The study of emotion was dormant for many years until Eckman's work and the more neurologically based work of Damasio, Robert Solomon is a philosopher who has written extensively on the topic. Looking at the underlying physiology is not going to produce a complete account of emotion. I have never said that. But what I have said and will say again is that no account of emotion that ignores the research that has been done is worth a bucket of warm spit. Damasio for example, specifically distinguishes between the physiology of emotion and the experience of emotion. Krimel said: Your best shot here is to appeal to higher authorities based not on what they say but on who they are and you criticize not my ideas but me. dmb says: Higher authorities? Sigh. To suggest that it's wrong to cite philosophers in making a philosophical point is laughable. You had said that Pirsig only mentioned reductionism once and had no problem with it and so I cited Fish to dispute that. [Krimel] Why yes, I did say that is what Pirsig said and reproduced the quote. You failed to even respond to that. That I specifically talked about the quote from Fish and the nature of lossiness in communication. And here you are running away from that. [dmb] If I say so myself you accuse me of being "lame" or whatever and when I come up with textual evidence you accuse me of arguing from authority. Dude, I think you don't understand how this game is played. [Krimel] I think in my previous post I said that, what you said, was "lame". But when you respond with this kind of continued evasion and distortion it really is becoming hard not to apply to adjective to you personally. You have some nerve lecturing me on the rules of the game. What game are we playing exactly because it seems to be that you are playing "hide and seek". [dmb] I directed you to video of Sandra Rosenthal and Hilary Putnam on the issue because they accuse your intellectual heros of being reductionist. [Krimel] And I invited you to offer up a specific quote on this point. All I heard them say is essentially that Dawkins is abrasive. But if you just want to play the game of whose got the best experts. I don't think yours are even in the same league as Dawkins or Wilson. [dmb] Well, I'm so sorry for referencing the work of professionals who have thought about this. That's just crazy talk, eh? My bad. I really shouldn't rely on people who know what they're talking about. How foolish of me. (Eyes rolling right out of my head) [Krimel] But you didn't "reference" anything but an offhand comment in the discussion section of a lecture that as I said offered nothing specific at all. Krimel said: I would actually appreciate a reasoned and reasonable attack on my position. dmb says: I wish you could appreciate it but I think you've already proven otherwise. [Krimel] If I were in the Aw Gi Cult I would flatly move to have you dismissed as leader. I have high expectations of you but this really is disappointing. I have to remind myself of my brother's motto, "When all else fails lower your expectations." But we are getting down to bed rock, Dave. I understand that it is difficult to be an apologist but if that is going to be your role, I think you ought to take it more seriously. But that's just my humble opinion. 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/
