Re: Intuitions, Illusions and Common Sense

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]>,
> > >> 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.

You don't listen when people tell you things. If you follow the steps 
I've listed you'll find out for yourself. It's not that cryptic, and you 
will find it
helpful - clue: Feldberg.

> > 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

--
David Longley