Re: Folk Psychology and Social Convention

David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dan 
> michaels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> http://www.behavior.org/journals_BP/2000/Place.pdf
> >>
> >> There is quite a large literature on social conformity which could be
> >> referred to, but whilst of some heuristic value (in the helpful,
> >> illustrative sense) I really find that social psychological literature
> >> relatively trivial compared to the rather detailed and powerful work
> >> which has been done for decades in what I rather loosely refer to in
> >> this newsgroup as "behaviour analysis" and "learning theory".
> >
> >
> >Thanks, you've only reminded us of this 1000 times so far. I really
> >find that very conforming to hear again.
> >
> >Longley Citation Statistics [8 long years and counting]
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >folk psychology [derogatorily] in over 1000 posts
> >Quine [glowingly] in over 1800 posts
> >silly [regarding others' ideas] over 400 times
> >Skinner [in awe] in over 800 posts
> >behaviorism [as accepted dogma] in over 500 posts
> >[pernicious] mentalism over 100 times
> >[pernicious] cognitivism over 250 times
> >intensional [as wrongish] over 1600 times
> >extensional [as correctish] over 1850 times
> >frag.html [self-promotion] over 300 times
> 
> Yet despite this, I bet we see yet more of your asinine 
> misrepresentations of popular neuroscience in posts to 
> comp.ai.philosophy. If you actually read some of the material you 
> irreverently *count* and disparage above, you might learn why your posts 
> amount to little more than science fiction and why they have next to 
> nothing to do with the philosophy of AI.
> 
> The above terms are exactly those which should occur in a forum which is 
> specifically for the discussion of the philosophy of AI, something you'd 
> discover for yourself if you actually read and understood any of the 
> relevant literature.


It's very clear you are stuck in a loop. Why not learn something new
and interesting:

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/VisualCortex.html#pathways

http://white.stanford.edu/~heeger/psych202/lecture-notes/
visual-cortex/visual-cortex.html