Re: Creativity

"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >
> >"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eray
> >>
> >> There are good reasons to believe that this may be all there is to
> >> "Cognitive Science". For some folk, their commitment to it might well
> >> change quite dramatically once they see how obviously the functionalism
> >> of the 60s and 70s mostly caches out as behaviourism,
> >
> >Except for all those pesky molecules, cells, fields and other brain_soup
> >constituents that is!
>
> You clearly have a very hard time *not* writing very silly things (quite
> apart from frequently misunderstanding what others write both here and
> elsewhere).

You are certainly the king of silly!

And what one or two others (Balter) wrote recently is either incorrect, or
is a misunderstanding on their part, and is for me to point out and you to
learn from.

>
> Behavior Analysis is one of the physical sciences. Amongst the other
> things you need to look into, you need to have a close look into what
> Evidential Behaviorism amounts to.

Amount to nothing.

>
> >
> >> and where it
> >> doesn't, collapses into literature - an austere and rather unattractive
> >> form perhaps, but creative writing nonetheless.
> >>
> >> What it certainly isn't (for all that that matters) - is science or
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you might like to give this possibility some thought.
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Longley
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> David Longley