flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/05/84)
From Gordon A. Moffet (proper!gam) Here is a free bonus: I've said that there is no mind because its existence has not be measured ... And I suppose there are no planets around any stars further than 100 light-years, because *their* existence has not been measured? Nonexistent until proven otherwise? Are concepts guilty until proven innocent? I don't know anything about the Aristotle-vs-Leucippus debate, but perhaps the point of the person who brought it up, was that lack of proof is inadequate grounds to discard a hypothesis entirely. If that was his point, he was right. Two cheers to Kenn Barry for his contribution. The idea that we do not observe minds is rubbish. Each person observes her own. I think the misgivings expressed by the behaviorist sympathizers about "mind" come from overloading the term with connotations that they don't like. They falsely assume that "mind" implies "nonphysical", "soul", etc. When you stack the deck, it is no wonder your opponent loses. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/84)
For all those who jump up and down complaining that some of us scoff at speculations simply because that's all they are: > And I suppose there are no planets around any stars further than 100 > light-years, because *their* existence has not been measured? Nonexistent > until proven otherwise? Are concepts guilty until proven innocent? Excuse me, I'm a scientist (it says so on my nametag), and I have proof that there ARE planets out there and I've "measured" their existence and I have very elaborate knowledge about what goes on on those planets based on my observation. I know, for instance, that ALL the other planets have little purple telepathic beings who eat with their noses, and there are animals with these huge... What? You want to see my evidence? Well, ... ... ... Here! Here's my evidence! ... No, wait, don't examine it so rigorously. You might damage the ... Oh, no, because you didn't believe my evidence was real, the little purple telepathic beings erased the evidence out of existence. You see, they only show themselves to those who believe, and if evidence of their existence is handled by a non-be... What? Oh, no, I'm not like those PSI researchers. They're all charlatans. MY work is scientific and real, because I've worked out an elaborate hypothesis, because I manufactured... UUHHHH, found! all of this evidence, and because my cousin and all her friends believe it... I don't know anything about the Aristotle-vs-Leucippus debate, but perhaps the point of the person who brought it up, was that lack of proof is inadequate grounds to discard a hypothesis entirely. If that was his point, he was right. Two cheers to Kenn Barry for his contribution. The idea that we do not observe minds is rubbish. Each person observes her own. I think the misgivings expressed by the behaviorist sympathizers about "mind" come from overloading the term with connotations that they don't like. They falsely assume that "mind" implies "nonphysical", "soul", etc. When you stack the deck, it is no wonder your opponent loses. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr