Re: Creativity

Bouh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:22:22 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > B: Behaviours don't exist either
> > These are human concepts, David
> >
> >
> > GS: And by what criteria does one differentiate "existence" and "being just
> > a concept?" When a rat presses a lever with sufficient force that it
> > operates a microswitch mounted on the lever I call that an instance of
> > behavior. The class to which it belongs is "conceptual" in the same sense as
> > "tree" is conceptual. 
>
>
> Not exactly. Think again

Well, Sizemore didn't really respond to the point.  Even if one
holds both "tree" and "a rat press[ing] a lever with sufficient force
that it operates a microswitch mounted on the lever" to be conceptual
"in the same sense" (everything is "in the same sense" as everything
else if we leave "same" completely unspecified), that has no
bearing on whether they both "exist".  Most people would readily say
that trees exist, but they wouldn't readily say that pressing a lever
exists, but rather that it occurs.

"exist" is a particularly problematic word.  As Russell pointed
out, although it is used as a predicate, it isn't one;
there's never a question of whether some thing exists,
since for it to *be* a thing it must exist.  Rather,
we should limit the use of the word to sets, as in
"unicorns do not exist" being equivalent to
"the set of unicorns is empty".  The set of trees is
non-empty, and the set of occurrences of a rat pressing
a lever is non-empty, and in that sense
rat-lever-pressing "exists".

> > Does that mean trees don't exist?
> >
> > And if someone kicked you in the groin, would that be real? Or maybe that
> > wouldn't be behavior?
> >
> > <Bouh> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:40:16 +0000, David Longley
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > OmegaZero2003 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > > >
> > > > > "David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lester Zick
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:03:42 +0000, David Longley
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And you clearly have a hard time not writing very silly things.
> > > > > > > Behavior Analysis is one of the experimental sciences. It isn't one
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > > > > the physical sciences unless you've started picking up rats and
> > > > > > > throwing them across the room.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards - Lester
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, once again - you don't know what you are talking about (but you,
> > > > > > like the rest of us, now know why that is don't you Lester - you don't
> > > > > > do any substantial reading so you have a rather limited explicit
> >
> > history
> >
> > > > > > to draw upon). The next time you consider posting something, ask
> > > > > > yourself whether it might look the same if you prefaced it with
> > > > > > something like "From my limited reading, it appears to me that..." -
> > > > > > that way, instead of posting, you might just go off and do some
> >
> > studying
> >
> > > > > > (which might have been the purpose of the post you so decided to
> >
> > comment
> >
> > > > > > on in the first place).
> > > > >
> > > > > You practice that speech while looking in the personality mirror every
> >
> > day.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > Like so many of the other things you believe in, "personality mirrors"
> > > > don't exist.
> > >
> > > Behaviours don't exist either
> > > These are human concepts, David
> > >
> > >
> > > > You are clearly befuddled by language and need to address that.
> > > >
> > > > Like several others here, you should stop taking every piece of helpful
> > > > advice as an insult, even if it hurts. Try listening and learning a
> > > > little.


--
<J Q B>