Re: Intuitions, Illusions and Common Sense

"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]>, Neil W Rickert
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> >David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>Given the interest in paradox, illusions and rationality, I thought
some
> >> >>folk might like to have a look at this:
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
> >> >
> >> >Given that it consists mostly of cognitivist interpretations of data,
> >> >I wonder why somebody as apparently anti-cognitivist as Longley would
> >> >suggest this.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because as I (and Glen Sizemore) have said several times now, one can
> >> read the results behaviourally skipping the "cognitivist" gloss - as
one
> >> can with all empirical research.
> >
> >One can also use the cog-speak to understand, as neuroscientists converse
in
> >such terms and have no problem understaning themselvs and making
progress.
> >
> >>
> >> Many points have been explained to many folk in this newsgroup with no
> >> apparent change in their subsequent verbal behaviour. Some folk might
> >> like to look at the "What Works" .pdf files that I have made available
> >> at the website below.
> >
> >What works is what neuroscience has been doing for decades.
>
> I suggested you read the Valenstein paper. I said that you should look
> carefully at the protagonists and location. Elsewhere I've advised you
> to look into the nature of intensional contexts and what I've said about
> them.
>
> Why do you think I did that?

To attempt to show that neurosciencetists can disagree over methods of
signal transmission and thus, is bereft of coherent knowledge about brain.

Unfortunately, while containing interesting historical anecdotes, the
article does not show that (if that is what you were trying to show).  What
is now known to be the case is that some signals are transmitted via
neurotransmitters, some via changes in electrical properties (e.g.,
potential ditribution changes), and still others via several second
messenger systems (other molecules such as NO, DNA transcription and
downstream effects, etc.)

What you may have gleaned from the article is that neuroscience, by focusing
upon one mechanism then/or another, it is inherently confused.  But it
really shows that by looking at all the data, one eventually comes to
coherent conclusions that combine the best of all worlds; while the quest
continues unabated.


>
> http://www.psychology.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/mccourt/website/htdocs/HomePag
> e/Psy486/Primary%20Source%20Readings/Valenstein%20(2002)%20Discovery%20of
> %20chemical%20neurotransmitters.pdf
>
> >
> >>
> >> The reason I suggested it was because 1) I've drawn attention to this
> >> recalcitrance before, and I've also drawn on the above line of research
> >> as one thread of "Fragments" (http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm)
> >> and 2) as I said when providing the link, people in this newsgroup seem
> >> to have an interest in paradox, illusions and rationality.
> >> --
> >> David Longley
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> David Longley