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]>,
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
> No - that is *not* the reason.

Tell me what you consider about the Valenstein paper.

>
> I suggested you focused on a) the location b) the protagonists.
>
> I also said you should look into what I have said about intensional
> contexts.
>
> You might also look up the piece on Naloxone and Neophobia and the story
> I provided about that.
>
> Then look at the Valenstein paper again.
>
> Then perhaps the paper referred to in *this* thread.
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Longley