Re: Folk Psychology and Social Convention

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ray Dillinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes
> David Longley wrote:
>
>
> > Perhaps you should do some research into this idea that's occurred to
> > you Eray. Why not objectively try to find out if people really would
> > like to have such a
> > comp.ai.Eray-type-philosophy.chatline.no-behaviourist-scum.
>
> Gee, David.  That would sorta imply that you might have considered it
> worthwhile to objectively try to find out whether people really would
> like to have comp.ai.genetic, which is actually supposed to be used for
> discussions of technique and results, and not philosophy at all,
> hijacked into rec.philosophy.behaviorist.Longleyism.

Tell you what - you seem reasonably smart - try this:

1) Look at the thread title
2) Look at the first newsgroup it was posted to
3) check out who created it and from where
4) have a look at what it is supposed to be about

> Had you done so, you might have discovered that people interested in
> tuning mutation rates, regulating population sizes, investigating the
> effects of different kinds of fitness functions and combination
> functions, solving for optima in combinatoric problems and producing
> useful results using genetic algorithms had no interest whatsoever in
> philosophy, behaviorism, fine points about the semantics of learning
> and semiotics, and your particular interpretation of behaviorism.

Whether you've got any interest in what you think philosophy is, or the 
semantics of learning and semiotics - (whatever you think that is) or my 
or anyone else's 'interpretation of behaviorism' isn't important. The 
title of the tread is though.

You're free to discuss whatever you wish of course, however, if you'd 
done what I suggested above in the first place, you wouldn't have 
addressed me at all. Instead, you could have directed your remarks to 
the person who decided to cross post the thread to the other newsgroups 
in the first place.

> Now go get some ice cream.  Please.  Seriously, it will contribute
> more to your happiness than continuing this mudfest.
>
>                       Bear

Not that you will, but perhaps you should have a look a little more 
closely at what is being said rather than assuming that it's no more 
than a "mudfest" - you might be surprised and revise what you think what 
"philosophy" is and the relevance of what's being discussed to whatever 
you're interested in.

Feel free to change follow-ups to comp.ai.philosophy only.
--
David Longley